Is there a right to travel without a driver's license in the United States?

Right to Travel vs. Freedom of Movement

The phrase "right to travel" should be clarified because it's commonly confused.

Many cases, documents, etc. using the phrase "right to travel" are in fact about Freedom of Movement, which is the Constitutional right to travel between States at will. If anyone speaks of a "Constitutional right to travel" Freedom of Movement is the only valid thing they could be referring to, as we'll show.

In pseudo-legal circles, "right to travel" means the supposed right to "travel freely in your private property / automobile / conveyance on the public roads / highways without a driver's license, insurance or registration and exempt from regulation or interruption provided one does not engage in commerce / earn profit or cause harm to people or property."

Absolute freedom! Could it be true? How does the law work?

Tenth Amendment, State Codes

Traffic regulation isn't mentioned in the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, therefore the power generally falls to the States pursuant to the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

States are free to enact whatever traffic regulations they want provided they do not violate federal law, as determined by the federal courts, pursuant to their police power.

All 50+ States, through their legislatures consisting of the people's elected representatives, have seen fit to devise and enact their own traffic codes and police them.

Was it always this way?

There wasn't always legislation displacing the common law. Automobile regulation began in the early 1900's. Here is an excellent paper that thoroughly explores the transitional period when decisions could go either way: The Orphaned Right: The Right to Travel by Automobile, 1890-1950.

Bicycles were regulated decades before automobiles were invented and activists of the day faced many of the same questions and challenges modern right to travel proponents do. An analysis of that period can be found in this publication: The Impact of the Sport of Bicycle Riding on Safety Law.

Constitutionality

The States have all enacted traffic regulations, but do they violate federal law or the Constitution?

Judging constitutionality is ultimately up to the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 3:

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Appeals are more-often-than-not declined by the Supreme Court so adjudication may stop at the federal United States Courts of Appeals (circuit courts) or District Courts and those are a good place to look for precedent, too. We prefer citations from these federal courts to avoid presumptions of bias that might arise by the State judging its own regulations and because federal decisions are superior to State decisions pursuant to the Supremacy Clause.

Federal Court Decisions

Let's have a look at some federal cases on the right of States to regulate traffic.

Hendrick v. Maryland 235 US 610 (1915)

The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the ways themselves . . . In the absence of national legislation covering the subject a State may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles — those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. And to this end it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers . . . This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the States and essential to the preservation of the health, safety and comfort of their citizens.

Hess v. Pawloski 274 US 352 (1927)

Motor vehicles are dangerous machines; and, even when skillfully and carefully operated, their use is attended by serious dangers to persons and property. In the public interest the State may make and enforce regulations reasonably calculated to promote care on the part of all, residents and non-residents alike, who use its highways.

Reitz v. Mealey 314 US 33 (1941)

The use of the public highways by motor vehicles, with its consequent dangers, renders the reasonableness and necessity of regulation apparent. The universal practice is to register ownership of automobiles and to license their drivers. Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process.

There we have three solid federal Supreme Court decisions that set nationwide precedent that cannot be ignored. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of law in the United States. Unless "right to travel" proponents can come up with a later Supreme Court ruling that states otherwise, their claims are busted.

And we have one less-impressive but telling quote from a lower federal district court:

Wells v. Malloy 402 F. Supp. 856 (1975)

Although a driver's license is an important property right in this age of the automobile, it does not follow that the right to drive is fundamental in the constitutional sense.

A few of the above cases were found in a somewhat inflammatory and dated but comprehensive publication, Idiot Legal Arguments. We picked out the relevant federal cases, but many more high-level State cases can be found there, too, if you're interested.

There actually isn't a whole lot at the federal level because appeals beyond State courts are often denied as it has long been accepted by the federal government that traffic regulation is a proper exercise of State police power. Federal courts uphold the ability of States to regulate road traffic provided it is done so with equality, reasonableness and for public safety and doesn't violate any federal laws or rights.

But I don't "drive" or use a "motor vehicle"! Those are legal terms used to enslave me and I'm smarter than that!

I'm afraid the State and its courts dictate how things are viewed under its law. You don't get to decide what's considered driving or a motor vehicle, they do. You can't simply switch out a few words to avoid responsibility. If you're in territory controlled by the US and/or a State then its laws may be applied to you and you have no lawful recourse (see Law Basics).

I've heard of people being ignored or let go by police, even without a license or insurance!

Police have discretion. The world is a very dynamic place. There are any number of reasons why you might be passed by or allowed to proceed at any given time. The cop might be a scared rookie, not care, not want to fight, have a date, have to pee, be on lunch break, be at the end of their shift and going home – think about it – they're human, not machines. The priorities of police and prosecuting attorneys vary. The law is what it is, though, and when you understand it you know in the long run you're looking for trouble if you don't obey it.

I don't like traffic regulations. What can I do?

Your lawful remedy is to convince the majority of people in your State to put pressure on your elected representatives in the State legislature to change the law. That or you could move to another State or country where there are less regulations (and perhaps more fatalities).

Study hard, verify claims, think for yourself, question this, comment.

Last updated: April 23, 2017 at 6:57pm PDT
  • Jermaine Brackett

    What you are saying is absolutely correct. However, you failed to even mention the specific law definitions of words like "motor vehicle", "driving", and "license." All three terms are commercial in every sense. But you fail to mention that anywhere in the article. Black's and Bouvier's Law books have the same definitions. No, you cannot "drive" without a "license" because it is by definition a commercial practice that can be regulated by states. But to "travel", which by definition has nothing to do with "driving", CANNOT be regulated by the states. Also, in the case of Thompson vs. Smith, it was ruled that " 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 right which he has under life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." So technically you are correct, and hold the right to stand by your information. But to not give BOTH sides of the argument, and not give the proper definitions by which the COURTS make their decisions, you are just as misleading as the geniuses that came up with the idea to dupe the American People out of their basic rights. Thanks for the misinformation.

    • pseudolaw.com

      Hi Jermaine, Thanks for your comments. I'll try to address everything you mentioned.

      1) It is incorrect to say the terms quoted are always "commercial". How words are defined depends on the jurisdiction (state or federal) and the Act at hand. When a charge is brought in a State court under a State traffic code, for example, the court first looks to the definitions in the State traffic code. In a State court, federal definitions, dictionary definitions – none of those necessarily apply. Where a definition in the immediate Act at hand is absent the courts can look to any number of sources and dictionaries before dictating what a word means. Courts are not bound by dictionaries and have the power to define words and interpret law within their jurisdiction. A relevant article I like is http://blog.oup.com/2013/06/scotus-marriage-definition-dictionary/

      2) It is incorrect to say "travel" cannot be regulated by the States. The Supreme Court decisions quoted in the article above make it clear that residents and non-residents, whether operating commercially or not, may be regulated, and this is part of the long-recognized police power of the State, permitted for maintaining order and public safety.

      In reality there is no "free society". Every society has rules, and every society has a government that can make any rules needed to maintain order and the society. The municipal, county, state and federal governments are entirely within the law provided they create laws in accordance with the laws of the local sovereign nation-state, i.e. the US based on the Constitution of 1788, that's recognized globally pursuant to Public International Law. When entities within the nation-state make laws that violate fundamental principles, it is up for an injured party to come forward and appeal as high as necessary to have them struck down and sent back to the legislature for revision, after which time the process may begin again if there are still violations. Nations are sovereign and the highest law on earth. If the national government becomes corrupt, there is no lawful remedy — where would you bring a claim? Surely not in that very same nation's courts — unless perhaps you ally with foreign nations and use economic and military pressure to provoke a change. The only option at that point is forceful overthrow. I don't think that's necessary in the US quite yet where the people still hold a significant amount of power, more than most other countries on earth.

      3) Pseudolegal proponents often take case quotes out of context. Let's have a look at Thompson v Smith for ourselves. We can read it at https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3467100988685921366.

      Scroll down to the actual decision of the court and we find:

      "The power of a city to control and regulate the use of its streets is a continuing power to be exercised as often and whenever the city may think proper. Washington, etc., Ry. Co. City Council of Alexandria, 98 Va. 344, 36 S.E. 385. The issuance and revocation of such permits by a city is merely a means of exercising the police power of the State delegated to the city to regulate the use of the public highways in the interest of the public safety and welfare. The Constitution of Virginia expressly provides that "the exercise of the police power of the State shall never be abridged." (Constitution Virginia, section 159.)"

      Then, along with what you quoted, and this is what attracted the conspiracists, it says:

      " . . . [Traveling on the roads by automobile] is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will."

      But immediately after that, it says this:

      "The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it."

      and

      "The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions."

      So you see, the court is not ruling that regulation is unlawful, but that arbitrary, unequally-applied, regulation is unlawful.

      We see the same mentioned in a highly-relevant case citing Thompson at https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10131702901035759855

      "The city driver's license revocation ordinance at issue in Thompson was upheld except to the extent it granted broad discretion to the city's chief of police to revoke licenses."

      Read carefully and investigate, lest you fall into a pit of misinformation yourself. 🙂

      • Russell

        I'm not part of the movement, just a reader. All I see is that private automobile travel is a right, not a privelage and a lot of crappy wording that doesn't determine anything about whether a license is required. Am I wrong or is it left a bit open ended? I'm still wondering about the definitions as well. My best summary of what I'm reading is that someone broke a safety law and was trying to not have it taken. Also,this movement wouldn't be around without the over regulations that we have today. How many laws are needed to go to and from work?

      • AlwaysFindTruthHere

        You have been defending the right of states to regulate commerce. The U.S. Constitution only allowed for the government to regulate commerce not the private rights of the people. All State Constitutions were required in order to be part of these united States of America had to follow the same language as the federal or their constitution and state would be void and not existent! So if the Federal government does not allow it….neither can states be allowed to regulate private rights….ONLY COMMERCE! All the cases you are reading…..is talking about they can put up street signs, lights, speeds to provide a standard that all may follow equally. But they can only regulate commercial conduct in each state, because the Constitutions in every state must follow the original Constitution of these united State of America. Once you under stand this, then you would understand, that no state may pass a law abridging private rights of the people. That is why they call it all codes….codes are administrative…NOT LAW! Law is the Statutes at Large in each state, and you will find in the original language of the original statutes their codes did not violate the Constitutions…but over time, they convoluted them with newer and more convoluted versions. That is why they need your signature on anything and everything from licences, tickets, waiver of rights in court…..all of it violates Constitutional limits. Remember the Constitutions limit government not the people. You have lost sight of this. If you hurt another Citizen, then the other Citizen can bring the Law under the Constitution of every state upon the violator by a proper Affidavit, supported complaint, then it can describe you and the violation that a judge can issue a warrant based on it…which follows the real law of the land. All other codes requires you to give up your right to these properly followed due process rights under strict Constitutional direction which every state is bound by. The only reason they get away with what they do……is you sign away…sign away your rights…..then under the rule of Equity Law is one of three actual lawful ways the courts must function…..which must follow the terms of the agreement….regardless of rights…unless fraud can be proven……which everything the government has done is under constructive fraud on every one. They call it statutory law….but it is neither Common Law, Equity Law or Maritime Law…..there is only 3 in Law! You are pledgurizing a fictional imitation of codes masqueraded as laws which only work under contract not LAW! The Judge showed me a copy of a old license in court and said "See this Mr….I can do anything I want with you, so shut up and sit down or I will sanction you or jail if you mention the Constitution in my court room again. So I will say it again……contract away! That is the only way they get away with what they do! And all of the court cases you are reading is just restating their right to regulate commercial conduct. And only commercial conduct…all definitions in those cases and the rights of the states to regulate commerce is all throughout all those cases. I have cases where the courts have specifically stated that even going through a Red lights does not give a state the right to regulate a person who operates a car for personal reasons. Even stated therefor no operators license can apply to them. Say all you want….you nor they will take the inalienable Rights of the People from us.

        • Robert Fisk

          i have not heard it said any better thank you so much iso wanted to say the exact thing .. you are absolutely correct …

        • Robert Fisk

          what is a traffic ticket .. is that not some form of attainer .. i heard some one say , that in its self is unconstitutional in at least two differnt pkaces in the constitution ?? .. and what about giving jurisdiction over yourself in a court .. never have i heard it said any better than carl miller stated in his youtube video ,, RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT A LICENCE PLATE ,, …..ANOTHER , man i just heard of is KARL LENTZ is another who is a straight shooter , i like that ,,, and lets not forget a EX SHERRIFF , EDDIE CRAIG , TAOOFLAW.COM ….. AND HUNDREDS OF OTHERS ,,, also from the research i have done personally and not being of any law education at all except for what i have read and listened to i found a case here where i am from i ohio actually the very city of dayton ,,,, City Of Dayton vs. DeBrosse , 23 NE. 2d 647 ; 62 Ohio App. 232 .. " the term MOTOR VEHICLE is different and broader than the word AUTOMOBILE ,, and title 18 USC 31 the destinction is very clear ,,, MOTOR VEHICLE means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highway in transportation of passenger or passengers and property …

    • Kennyb

      Psueudolaw 1 Jermaine 0

  • RegisterToPost

    Thanks for a great article. Eagerly awaiting more law articles debunking all those crank claims you see on YT videos. When are you going to update the blog?

  • Pingback: Do You Need a License to Drive? — Of Course You Do! | Philip Marks – philipem1000()

  • dwjoae

    This article is nonsense. The right to travel by the ways and means of the times is clear and even the corporate courts have ruled time after time on this. We own the roads, not a foreign, private, bankrupt corporation called UNITED STATES, which is located on the District of New Columbia, under U.N./I.M.F. organization, owned outright by the CROWN/VATICAN/SWISS banking cabal. All they need is for you to be stupid enough to claim U.S. citizen status, get a license, and be surety for the BOND for that PERSON, JOHN P. DOE. They need you to bow down to them. If you don't know what to do to them when they mess with you, you aren't doing your homework, period.

    • pseudolaw.com

      I have offered 3 cases where the Supreme Court, the highest court and final decider of constitutionality in the US, has ruled that regulating highways for residents and non-residents, commercial and non-commercial purposes, is entirely within the purview of State police power. I have not seen any rulings that say these 3 decisions can be ignored under any circumstances. You have provided no sources or evidence for your claims, which appear to be copy-pasted without scrutiny from pseudolegal armchair lawyers around the internet. Stateless people, i.e. people with no citizenship, are held under the laws of the local nation-state too. You can't just renounce your citizenship and go on a killing spree and expect to be left alone. Law doesn't work that way. Sovereign states enjoy immunity throughout their claimed territory in accordance with public international law. When they decide to enforce their law you have no lawful remedy outside of their law short of declaring war on the whole nation. There is no higher lawful power on earth than a sovereign nation-state. If you want the US to stop enforcing its law you will have to defeat it militarily, and that could involve also defeating all of its allies across the globe that recognize and support it as a sovereign power.

  • J Brackett

    Very pervasive article you wrote here sir. It seems that you have some law training so please give BOTH sides here. All the examples you gave were regarding "motor vehicles". But fail to mention that the LEGAL definition of a "motor vehicle", is strictly commercial. Black's Law, Bouvier's Law, and all other law dictionaries describe it the same. An "automobile" on the other hand, is a private conveyance. Personal property, of which cannot be legislated. Also you fail to mention how EVERY state and even the FEDERAL motor vehicle code is written to legislate the commercial act of transportation. But I digress. If you are out to "debunk" anything, you might want to do proper research sir. Not spew a few cases that clearly describe commercial activity that can be regulated by the states, but leave out the fact that use of a private "automobile", which is LEGALLY considered part of household goods, is something that the government can't regulate.
    At least use common sense here. If you have cash in hand, you can buy a car without a driver's license. This is a fact. So if it is legal to BUY a car with no license, what grounds do the state have to tell me I cannot USE the car I just bought? You do not need a license to use the car until you register it with the state. Because when you register the car, you are declaring to the state that you will be using the car (which then is officially and legally considered a "motor vehicle") for commercial purposes. Essentially saying that you will be using the highways for personal gain. The crazy thing in all of this is that the people never question or look into anything like this. Thus making it easier for folks such as yourself to get by with heaping such bs on the masses. You are not part of the solution. You only serve to perpetuate the issue.

    • pseudolaw.com

      Thanks for your input, but I'm afraid you are completely misinformed. Courts aren't bound by Black's or any dictionary. Say a charge is brought against you in a State court under the State traffic code. When dealing with that charge the only definition of "motor vehicle" the court will use is that found in the "Definitions" section at the top of that particular State's traffic code. Most or all of these State definitions do not define "motor vehicle" as a strictly commercial device. Attempting to bring any other definition into the court is pointless because it doesn't apply. Where a word is not defined explicitly in the legislation at hand, the court decides. See e.g. https://illinois.edu/blog/view/25/93323. Black's follows the courts, not the other way around.

      The cases provided clearly validate the regulation of the highways generally, and the requiring of licenses for those operating on it, whether resident or non-resident, operating commercially or non-commercially. If you further continue to the links provided you will find about a hundred other cases speaking about highway regulation. Some say in even more clear terms that "private automobiles" can indeed be regulated. For example:

      "The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets" Thompson v Smith (1930) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3467100988685921366 (Ironically, this case is often falsely cited as proof-positive that we have a right to travel unregulated by automobile.)

      The courts aren't simply going to ignore the danger or demands of the people for efficient highways because you decide your own personal definitions apply. As holders of the constitutional legislative and judicial power the state assembly and courts decide and dictate the law and what words mean. If they say whatever you were traveling in is a motor vehicle, it is.

      • Jermaine Brackett

        So basically what you are saying is that states don't have to follow anything but what THEY deem is appropriate? So because the STATE doesn't define "motor vehicle" as a commercial device, they reserve the right to make up definitions as they go along? They don't have to follow the Federal vehicle code? Private automobiles can be classified under household goods. Meaning that the government, State or Federal cannot regulate the use of private property. As is stated in one of the hundreds of cases that you pointed out. From what I gather, if cars can be classified as household goods or private property, how can the states regulate the "private" use of said property? Seems awful shady my friend. So now also you are telling me that the state can also determine what it is I am traveling in? They no longer have the burden of PROVING that I am indeed operating or driving a motor vehicle, Which by definition is inherently commercial and under their jurisdiction, not traveling in my private conveyance? Which they cannot regulate by requiring licensing or permits. In a nutshell, your reply basically told me that no matter what the actual LEGAL definition of what I'm doing is, the state and court hold the right to change the definition to fit what they are attempting to charge me with? Sorry, that's not going to fly. Especially when there is case law that states that the courts cannot do such a thing. I appreciate your replies even though my comments were tainted with sarcasm and a dash of rudeness. You were very professional and even minded when you responded. Thanks for doing your best to give me the info.

        • pseudolaw.com

          State and federal jurisdictions are entirely separate (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States ). "Motor vehicle" is defined three or more times in the federal USC alone (18 USC 31, 18 USC 2311, 49 USC 30102). The definition that applies on a particular charge depends on the legislation that the charge is brought under. The USC definitions would only be used in a federal court in a charge brought under that chapter. For a state traffic charge, the definition in the state traffic code will apply. Yes, the federal and state governments dictate the law and what words mean, in their arguable roles as representatives of the people. They don't just arbitrarily change definitions on a whim, per se – they follow the state constitutional process to enact them, post them publicly and apply them equally to everybody. Courts can only define words that the legislature has failed to explicitly define. Once a legislature defines a word a court can't modify it in dealing with charges under the specific Act, section, chapter, etc. where the definition appears and applies.

          • jermaine

            Ok thanks for all the info. With everything floating around about this, you can't tell what's real and what isn't.

      • Jermaine Brackett

        Oh yes, can you please explain this from American Jurisprudence 1st Ed, Highways 163 6.2- A citizen's Right to travel upon public highways includes the right to use the usual conveyances of the time, including horse-drawn carriage, or automobile, for ordinary purposes of life and business… Certainly not pervasive language here. Very to the point. Which makes everything you said invalid. I'm not trying to rock the boat by any means. Just trying to get to the bottom of this rabbit hole.

        • pseudolaw.com

          Again, this is from Thompson v Smith, linked in my comment above, which when read in full goes on to say that a city may indeed require permits for private automobiles. The issue resolved by the court was not whether highway regulation was permissible, but whether or not the revoking of such a permit could be done arbitrarily, without equality.

          "such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to others of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions"

          There IS a right to travel, or right to movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law ), but it is not an unlimited right. It is still subject to reasonable limitation for public safety, just as nuclear arms are excluded from the second amendment.

          At least one judge calls highway regulation an "enhancement" rather than an infringement on the right to travel:

          "The motor vehicle code was promulgated to increase the safety and efficiency of our public roads. It enhances rather than infringes upon the right to travel." https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10872398176234123252

  • Andrew

    I'm just finding out about all of this and still researching it so forgive me if I'm wrong. In my research, I found that a bill passed in Georgia allowing this 'right to travel' that you call pseudo-law:

    "Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose. Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an inalienable right"

    So if it is up to the state to decide what takes place on their roadways, how does the right to travel constitute pseudo-law? And also, is there any case of anyone (18+ years of age, not insane/reckless, and never being issued a license) getting arrested or suffering any legal consequences purely for the reason of driving with no license?

  • Scott

    You mentioned the Tenth Amendment, but what about the Ninth Amendment? The "Unenumerated Rights" Clause, which this right would fall under. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In Thompson v. Smith (as well as every other court cases I have read on this issue) they say traveling on the public roadways is a right. They them go on to say that right can be regulated "by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets." However, by requiring a license/permit for the exercise of a right, they are converting a right into a privilege. Isn't converting a right into a privilege, in and of itself, a violation of that right?

    • pseudolaw.com

      There are few to no "unlimited rights." Thompson v Smith says travel is a right that may not be prohibited at will, i.e. arbitrarily. The right may still be prohibited reasonably by due process of law. "The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it." https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3467100988685921366

      • Scott

        The only limit to a right is where it infringes on someone else's rights, e.g. I have the right to provide food for myself, but I can't steal that food from someone else. Traveling on the public roadways, without a license, does not infringe on anyone's rights. However, requiring a license to exercise that right does. It is no less of a violation of a right, than if the State required anyone who wants to publicly voice their opinion to obtain a license to do so. Requiring a license to exercise a right is a violation of that right, even if they equally require everyone to have the license. They are simply violating everyone's rights equally. As for the public safety argument, if the States were really concerned with public safety, they would make driver safety a required course, starting in middle school. Of course, they wouldn't be able to profit off of that.

        • pseudolaw.com

          If you can get the Supreme Court to agree with your reasoning it might change the country. As it stands most highway regulation is deemed to fall under state police power and each state has its own legislation and common law. If you want things to change, the proper way to go about it is to pressure your representatives in the state legislature to change the law, and/or bring a constitutional or other defense/appeal when you're charged, and tell others to do the same. Before you can truly declare the system corrupt you need the support of the majority of your fellow citizens and for the collective will to be ignored… So where are the polls showing millions supporting the abolishment of state driver's license requirements?

          • Scott

            What gives the legislature, the courts, or public opinion the authority to limit our rights, or convert them into privileges? I don't have a problem with "most highway regulation". Traffic lights, speed limits, D.U.I laws, etc. are all reasonable and legitimate regulations that (for the most part) keep traffic flowing in an orderly fashion, and increases the safety of the roadways. My problem is with requiring a license for something I already have the right to do. Also, I didn't say the system is corrupt, I was implying there is a conflict of interest.

          • pseudolaw.com

            Pursuant to international law, nation-states enjoy sovereignty over their recognized territory. The authority of state and federal constitutions and legislatures to dictate the law and the people's rights is inherent in that. They simply rule by force, given an air of legitimacy by theories of social contract and popular sovereignty. The US was designed to be dynamic and able to evolve. If Congress or the States wanted they could completely amend the Constitution, changing it or replacing it completely. It is not for the individual to decide what is lawful or not. It never has been. The US has always embraced principles of constitutional, representative democracy, with one Supreme Court holding the ultimate power of judicial interpretation.

          • Scott

            Federal constitutions and legislatures do not dictate what people's rights are, other than the rights that only come into existence once a government is established, like the right to vote. The Constitution does not grant us our rights, it simply acknowledges them, and says the government to protect them and not violate them. If Congress or the States amended the Constitution, and eliminated the First Amendment, that would not mean we no longer have the right to freely express our views and opinions. That right would still exist, it just would not be recognized by the government. If the government passes a law that violates my rights, I am under no obligation to follow that law. It was once lawful to own slaves, yet it was still a violation of those people's rights to enslave them. Those slaves who ran away were not violating the law, because those slavery laws were a violation of there natural rights, and therefore null and void.

          • pseudolaw.com

            If the local sovereign national or state government doesn't recognize a so-called right it may as well not exist, because you can't enforce it anywhere on earth. No court cares about your personal interpretation of law. The courts exist to interpret and enforce constitutions and legislation and fill in the grey areas those documents don't yet address.

            "The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky but the articulate voice of some sovereign or quasi-sovereign that can be identified" Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen (1917) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4862321298494306975

            The US and States, via their constitutions and legislatures, enjoy nare-undisputed sovereignty over the territory in accordance with public international law.

          • Scott

            I don't care that the courts, a branch of the government, say the legislature, another branch of the government, can limit people's rights. I do not take their opinions into consideration when deciding whether or not to exercise my rights. I'm not going to stop exercising a right because the government and/or the courts do not recognize it. Nor will I stop exercising that right because the government uses the threat of violence and/or imprisonment to intimidate me into not exercising that right. If we stop fighting for our rights, and allow the government to limit them or take them away, THEN those rights may as well not exist.

          • pseudolaw.com

            You may not care but they will enforce their law and there is no lawful remedy you can use to free yourself or win damages. Lawful rights come from government and are only as effective as your ability to enforce them with the power of the state. As soon as a government limits or takes away rights of persons in their recognized territorial jurisdiction, barring a successful appeal, they're gone. In the US, a representative democracy based on popular sovereignty, your remedy is to petition your fellow man, your municipal, county, state and federal representatives, to get enough support to convince the legislature(s) to change the law. It's either that or military overthrow, and good luck with that considering the US has one of the most effective militaries and many allies around the globe.

          • Scott

            The problem with that remedy is that most of my fellow man have been convinced, as you have, that our rights come from the government, even though the U.S was founded on the idea that rights do not come from government. Governments are instituted to secure our rights, not to decide which rights we are allowed to have. Then there are those people who, for the most part, agree with my view point but will not fight for their rights, "and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, then to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." So, what is the remedy when the people themselves would rather allow governments to convert their right into a privilege then to fight to restore that right, or believe that we only have the rights that governments allow us to have?

          • pseudolaw.com

          • pseudolaw.com

            "The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky but the articulate voice of some sovereign or quasi-sovereign that can be identified" Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen (1917).

            Nation-states and the treaties they voluntarily ratify are the highest law on earth. No court shares the interpretation that enforceable lawful rights exist outside nation-states. The supreme law of the land is not individual interpretation but the Constitution per the Supremacy Clause. Government does decide rights. If we don't let a sovereign, e.g. government, a king, decide then it's left up to individual interpretation, i.e. anarchy. The latter is not conducive to long-term cooperation but is the law of the jungle, a free for all where might makes right. At this point in human civilization only nation-states enjoy that freedom. Arguably from time to time states become overbearing and out of control and the people have to storm the capitol and start it all over again. I personally don't think we're quite there yet in the west. I'm not saying it's the right system or best system, just how it is.

          • pseudolaw.com

            "The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky but the articulate voice of some sovereign or quasi-sovereign that can be identified" Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen (1917).

            Nation-states and the treaties they voluntarily ratify are the highest law on earth. No court shares the interpretation that enforceable lawful rights exist outside nation-states. The supreme law of the land is not individual interpretation but the Constitution per the Supremacy Clause. Government does decide rights. If we don't let a sovereign, e.g. government, a king, decide then it's left up to individual interpretation, i.e. anarchy. The latter is not conducive to long-term cooperation but is the law of the jungle, a free for all where might makes right. At this point in human civilization only nation-states enjoy that freedom. Arguably from time to time states become overbearing and out of control and the people have to storm the capitol and start it all over again. I personally don't think we're quite there yet in the west. I'm not saying it's the right system or best system, just how it is.

          • Scott

            You keep saying it isn't up to individual interpretation, but that is all court decisions are, three out of five individuals agreeing on an interpretation. Also, as I have already pointed out, the courts agree that traveling on the public roadways is a right. They just immediately contradict themselves by saying the government can require a license and a fee to exercise that right. A right is something that does not require any kind of permission to do. If it is a right then governments cannot require a license or a fee to do it. If they can require a license and a fee, then it is not a right, it is a privilege. I, also, do not think we are near the point of needing to overthrow the government. I consider the drivers license issue to be a relatively minor violation. If they start locking people up, and/or executing them for things like speaking out against the government, that would be a different story. Since I have been voicing my opinion on this issue for over two years now, and no one from the government has shown up at my door, I think we're good.

          • pseudolaw.com

            Do you not see any danger in the idea of inflexible, unlimited rights? What about children or the mentally-challenged? Should people be able to drive tanks on the freeway or fly airplanes over the White House whenever they want? No, things should be reasonably and fairly, not arbitrarily, regulated, with due process of law. A good government can adapt to changing times and technologies as needed to stop the whole thing from crashing down and the fruits of society being exploited by those who don't serve the public interest. Types of government within nation-states vary, but in the US and other common law countries the courts enjoy a broad power of judicial review. A strong separation of powers is said to be a benefit, not a curse. Some countries don't place as much weight on the decisions of the courts – two-thirds of the world follow a civil law structure, where the legislature simply dictates the law. It is arguably a more simple and effective system, but I still wonder if there might be some benefit to judicial review.

          • Scott

            It is not an inflexible, unlimited right. As I said before, I agree that the state can have "rules of the road", regulating how to act while using the roadways. You can't drive 100 mph through a residential neighborhood; you can't drive drunk; and no your 12 year old can't drive, I don't care how good they are at Mario Kart. If you drive drunk, you are endangering every other driver on the road and, therefore, violating their rights. The same applies to kids, and the mentally-challenged. Driving a tank on the roads would damage the roads and violate the rights of every tax payer who's tax dollars were used to pay for that road. I haven't said anything about flying planes, that is a completely different issue. My problem isn't with regulation of travel, it is with the driver's license, and only the driver's license. By requiring a license to drive, the State is taking away your right to use the public roadways and saying they will not return that right unless you pay them a fee. That is a violation of that right. I'm not saying that right can never be taken away, either. If you get caught driving drunk, the State absolutely has the authority to take away your right to use the roadways. Do you honestly believe our society would come crashing down without driver's licenses, and what "fruits of society" would be exploited? Also, I agree that there are definitely benefits to judicial review. My earlier statement that "I don't care what the courts say" was a bit of hyperbole. I just don't put courts on a pedestal, because "the opinion of the court" is really just the opinion of, at least, three of the current judges, and their interpretation. That is why there are almost always dissenting opinions, and why cases are often overturned. On the issue of rights, I would recommend reading (if you haven't already) 'The Social Contract and Constitutional Republics' http://www.constitution.org/soclcont.htm and 'Presumption of Nonauthority and Unenumerated Rights' http://www.constitution.org/9ll/schol/pnur.htm

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            You need to separate the act of using the roadways and the act of driving a car. You don't have to pay a fee to be allowed to use the roadways. You can ride a bus, ride a bike, walk, hitchhike, ride with a friend, ride in a motorcycle sidecar, and so on, without having a license. You can cross borders and even leave the country without having to pay or ask for permission. You can use other methods, too. You can take a flight, you can ride a train, you can sail in a boat, you can crawl, and you can swim, all without needing a license.

            Hurling more than a ton of steel around is significantly different. Much like pilots, drivers have the ability to do a great deal of damage and hurt a lot of people if they aren't held to a standard of training, safety, and periodically verified competence. The right to travel does not create blanket protection for every activity that could be connected to travel. Licensing has been found to be an effective way of ensuring that drivers are familiar with the rules of the road, have a minimum level of driving proficiency, have the ability to see and hear what's around them, and that they have a form of identification that verifies that they have passed these necessary tests.

            Until somebody (maybe you?) can popularize an alternative that ensures public safety and positive identification of qualified drivers, licensing is the best scheme we've got. I'm not sure how great the costs are where you are, but here, they're fairly low and the proceeds go toward administrative costs and road maintenance.

          • Scott

            Personally, I hope that self driving cars become the main mode of travel relatively soon. That would solve this, and many other, issues.

          • No one special

            Horses were as dangerous as cars. In fact, horses are more dangerous than a car is. A car never gets spooked and takes off on its own. A car does not refuse to accept what its owner tells it to do (except for Toyotas that suddenly go full throttle).
            People were injured and killed on a regular basis when horses, buggies, and carts ruled the roads. Horses had blinders put on them which could get them to not realize they were ready to walk off a cliff.
            Taking a test to prove competency using a road based vehicle can make sense. However, paying every year for a registration and every few years to update the expiration date on a license make no one safer. Those actions only impoverish those who legally have to have those items.
            Assume I am in a wheelchair or old and unable to walk much. Why should I lose my ability to travel locally because I can not afford to pay a license fee?
            If I live in the country public transportation may not exist for 20 miles or more from my house. It could literally be a 100 mile walk to find public transportation.
            We have freedom to choose where we live. We have freedom of movement. Yet somehow having an iron horse instead of a flesh and blood horse suddenly removes those rights? Logically, those concepts do not work in real life. Either we have freedom, or we do not.
            Interestingly, a drivers license and registration are not the result of a legal contract. Contracts can not be revoked by just one party. Licenses can be revoked by just the consent of one party.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            You're saying horses were more dangerous, but that's a complete crock. Your entire supporting argument is hypothetical arguments about cartoon gaffes like riding off a cliff or the risk of low-energy collisions and failures. Let's do the same thing for cars, shall we? A tire can blow out on the highway and send a car careening into an overpass at 70mph. Brakes can fail as a child runs across the street, leaving him crushed under two tons of American Pride™. A windshield that suddenly fogs up on a two-lane road can suddenly put a driver in the opposing lane, resulting in a head-on collision at the equivalent of highway speeds. A distracted driver on a snowy road can take their attention off the road and wind up falling down the same cliff as that horse. A driver who misinterprets a traffic light can make a premature left turn and get smashed by oncoming traffic. A drunk driver can hurl a ton and a half of automobile over a barricade because he overestimated his driving ability. A fatigued driver can wind up half-dozing at the wheel one moment, and halfway through a bus the next. Automobiles generate far greater energies than horses, weigh far more than horses, travel far faster than horses, fail more suddenly and spectacularly than horses, and have no instinct to make them avoid smashing into each other, into people, or into structures. They're apples and oranges. Not to mention, it's entirely within the states' powers to regulate the use of horses on public roads, as well. Many of them do, I believe, since horses are not appropriate on all roads.

          • geno

            pseudolaw.com i just wanted to tell you something are rights do not come from another man telling another they can't drive a car they own that is not right the bible is the true laws of the land and all man are created equal genisis chapter-1 26:28.. say all man are created equal and shall have dominion over the earth and the sea and everything on it and it did't say that another man supposed to be telling another man what to do that lives and dies like the next one man is not god..and the are travelers by nature that god instilled in everyone of us and once god puts something in you thats what you naturally are.and travelers are one thing we are and thats why i 100% agree with scott dont let them courts and cops which is nothing but trying to steal your money to do things with that you need brainwash you like they have done most people its all propaganda..the roads are public roads the land is created by god for use to use and the roads are built for use to travel down and are tax dollar is for the state to keep the roads up thats all people wavied there rights not know when they get a drivers license..a driver means hired in blacks law that dont apply to private..before long the state will say all people who has a swimming pool on there property will have to have a license from the state to swim in there own damn pool..BS..lol"

          • Brian

            Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)

            Held:

            2. Since the Constitution guarantees the right of interstate movement, the purpose of deterring the migration of indigents into a State is impermissible, and cannot serve to justify the classification created by the one-year waiting period. Pp. 394 U. S. 629-631.

            This is within the case:

            This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement. That

            Page 394 U. S. 630

            proposition was early stated by Chief Justice Taney in the Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 48 U. S. 492 (1849):

            I own one car that hasn't been registered, and I want to move that property to another place or state, but the state has threatened(deterring me from moving) or do 'tow, or impound' my property without due process just because its not "registered". They have encroached on my right, unreasonably burdened me plain and simple, no ifs and or buts about it. It is a clear infringement, a deprivation of rights and property. To use a vehicle to travel is using rights in common ways, and vehicles are the #1 mode of travel just like they were in 1969.

            They continued:

            "For all the great purposes for which the Federal government was formed, we are one people, with one common country. We are all citizens of the United States; and, as members of the same community, must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own States."

            We have no occasion to ascribe the source of this right to travel interstate to a particular constitutional provision. [Footnote 8] It suffices that, as MR. JUSTICE STEWART said for the Court in United States v. Guest, 383 U. S. 745, 383 U. S. 757-758 (166):

            "The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized."

            ". . . [T]he right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution. The reason, it has been suggested, is

            Page 394 U. S. 631

            that a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created. In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution."

            Thus, the purpose of deterring the in-migration of indigents cannot serve as justification for the classification created by the one-year waiting period, since that purpose is constitutionally impermissible. If a law has

            "no other purpose . . . than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it [is] patently unconstitutional."

          • pseudolaw.com

            The key is in the phrase which unreasonably burden or restrict. State traffic codes in general aren't seen to be unreasonable, as shown in this article. There IS certainly a right to travel, and Shapiro v Thompson was instrumental in clarifying it, but it is not an unlimited right – it never has been, and that case doesn't say it is, either.

  • mike

    Do you honestly think that being licenced and registered makes one a better driver? I have no problem with traffic laws regulating how people drive but really. It's only the STATE collecting money on what one owns as their own. If the STATE can take my car for not paying then they own it. That is an unconstitutional infringment on the right to use what one owns. When property rights go so do other rights. This sounds like a progressive concept. It's also a plank of the communist party
    for the STATE to take ownership of property. The courts are corrupted so who has a right anymore? The constitution is laughed at. The President doesn't even care about the law of the land any more.

    • pseudolaw.com

      It wasn't suggested anywhere in the article that being licensed and registered makes one a better driver. The intent is to reveal how the state views highway regulation in light of the right of freedom of movement. All 50+ state legislatures seem to feel licensing and registration are helpful in keeping the highways safe and efficient. Yes, in accordance with international law the local sovereign nation-state enjoys the ability to lawfully control all property within its recognized territory. Private home ownership, for example, can only be had in fee simple, subject to "taxation, compulsory purchase, police power, and escheat." [1]. I am not sure the government is so corrupted that it's time for violent overthrow, the only real option when that happens, just yet. I think by understanding the law better we will know why the courts rule as they do and see they do in fact guard the people from unconstitutional excesses of the legislature(s). The President is only supposed to do what Congress allows. Those in office do things wrong from time to time but I think we generally learn and improve the system as we go forward.

  • Chris LaRose

    You didn't do all your homework. You should have looked up the "LEGAL" definitions for 'Motor Vehicle', 'operator' (or any derivation of), 'driver' (or any derivation of) and 'license'. before you used them in your post. You are under the mistaken impression that they mean what YOU think they do, but they all have very different meanings 'in law'. It's all about commerce, and if you are not involved in commerce then it doesn't normally apply to you, going about your daily life.

    18 USC § 31 – Definitions(a) Definitions.— In this chapter,the following definitions apply:
    (6) Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers,
    passengers and property, or property or cargo.

    (10) Used for commercial purposes.— The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate,charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any
    business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

    DRIVER: One >>>employed<<< in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902,

    Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969) "The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation."

    License: “The permission, by competent authority, to do an act which, without permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort.” People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2, 4. “Leave to do a thing which licensor could prevent.” Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118. “A license fee is a charge made primarily for regulation, with the fee to cover costs and expenses of supervision or regulation.” State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc.2d 700; 211 NW.2d 480, 487.

    Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence,Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 "The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel,includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business."

    Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 "… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference is a fundamental constitutional right"

    People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo.210. "No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and person 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."

    Any questions?? keep it civil and site your references,

    • pseudolaw.com

      Most of what you said has already been debunked in other comments…

    • pseudolaw.com

      Hi Chris, Most of what you said has already been addressed in other comments.

      The definitions that apply on a traffic charge are found in the State traffic code and common law of the State traffic court. State courts are not bound by Black's or the legislation or common law of other States or jurisdictions. A definition in the federal USC has no bearing on a case in a State court. If you tell me what State you're in I'd be happy to interpret the traffic code.

      I cannot verify the quote you referenced in Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4301182542008304422 ). The case appears to be an appeal from the Alabama Supreme Court. How words are defined in that case would be specific to the jurisdiction and legislation under which the charge originated, i.e. in/of the State or City.

      Thompson v Smith expresses the right of travel / movement but then goes on to say the right may be limited by due process of law, provided it is not limited unreasonably, arbitrarily or unequally:

      "The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions." (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3467100988685921366 )

      People v Nothaus again fully supports the right of the State to reasonably regulate the highways:

      "The regulation and control of traffic upon the public highways is a matter which has a definite relationship to the public safety, and no one questions the authority of the General Assembly to establish reasonable standards of fitness and competence to drive a motor vehicle which a citizen must possess before he drives a car upon the public highway." (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12450888330073927478 )

      Courts have upheld driver licensing as a reasonable intrusion on the right to travel for some time now, as seen in the Supreme Court decisions quoted in the article above and by other sources, e.g.: "No court after 1920 found the right to travel sufficient to strike down a driver license requirement." http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1772042

      • $168356457

        The right to locomotion using any commonly available means of transportation is not an activity which can be regulated by the state, sorry. Now if you're simply arguing that drivers need licenses to carry passengers, well sure that's true.

        • pseudolaw.com

          The state can regulate whatever it wants provided it follows the state and federal constitution in the eyes of the state and federal courts. Can you show an example of a federal court agreeing with your statement? I have provided and linked to numerous decisions stating the contrary in the article.

          • $168356457

            CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
            ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

            SEC. 6. Slavery is prohibited. Involuntary servitude is prohibited except to punish crime.

            Black's Law Dictionary 9th ed.

            license, n. (15c) 1. A permission, usu. revocable, to commit some act that would otherwise be unlawful; … See SERVITUDE (1).

            So I guess now you're going to try and tell me that this isn't really what it means, right?

          • pseudolaw.com

            This has already been covered once or twice. Black's is not binding in any, way, shape or form in US or state courts. On a state traffic charge in a state court the definitions provided in the state traffic act and, where a definition is not legislated, by the common law of the traffic court are all that matter.

          • Bob

            Again you are way off bases watch CARL Millers Videos.and again look up the Supreme Court cases Marbury v Madison and Murdock v Pennsylvania and Shuttlesworth v Alabama, and lets not forget article 6, paragraph 2. Time for you to do some real ready and stop spewing crap you no nothing about,because you are so so off bases.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            1) The definition of "involuntary servitude" in the context of the 13th Amendment is found in case law, not in Black's Law Dictionary.

            2) The phrase "involuntary servitude" is distinct from simple "servitude" which may be voluntary and not prohibited. Driving is not compulsory.

            2b) The terms "driving," "driver," "drive," "motor vehicle," "car," "motorcycle," "truck," &c., are defined in state transportation codes. These are the definitions which apply if you are cited for a violation of a provision of the transportation code. UCC and Black's Law Dictionary definitions are irrelevant. Just repeating that for the record.

            3) The question of defining "involuntary servitude" has come up before and been dealt with rigorously in The Slaughter-House Cases (1916), Bailey v. Alabama (1911), and United States v. Kozminski (1988), which all describe "involuntary servitude" as compulsory service and/or severe restrictions on freedom to move, contract, own property, or work which resemble the state of slavery before the 13th Amendment was adopted. Being required to go through a licensing process to operate a fast, heavy machine in public places is not "service," it does not resemble the state of slavery, and it does not prohibit you from moving as a passenger with a licensed driver, using common carriers, walking, bicycling, or otherwise moving.

      • Bob

        I don't know where you get your info but you are so far off track,I can't believe you have not crashed and burned yet. you really need to do more research before you actually start to speak.

      • Robert Fisk

        traffic law does not apply if u r not in traffic or driving … lets just keep it simple stupid ,,, does the farmer travel down the road on his tractor ?? does he have tags on it ?? does it not have a motor … here is the key ,, everyone has the right till u give it away and say u subject urself to the traffic law ,, if no contract can be shown apon my request ,,, where is their jurisdiction when did I subject myself to them I did not ever so therefore the number one thing prove you have jurisdiction over me I'm doing the same thing the farmer is doing my all to mobile as described in city of Dayton vs Debrosse 23 NE 2d 647 650 ; 62 ohio app. 232 says that there is a difference between the two a motor vehicle and an automobile depending on how you use it you have no rights until you claim them is basically what it boils down to once you claim them it is their responsibility to prove you wrong under United States Code deprivation of Rights I dare anyone to say I don't have a right that is what you are trying to get them to do understand the goal claim the right dare them to say you don't have it because every Supreme Court case says you do not only United States law title 18 USC 31

    • Robert Fisk

      Very good congratulations you have now claimed the right now here is what I will give you a little tidbit look up United States Code deprivation of Rights you will find that very interesting if you read the third paragraph it says once a judge or cop or federal officer state officer act outside of their jurisdiction which with that information in hand and print it up you are correct you have the right to travel and use your automobile as personal property without a license without a tag now the deprivation of Rights print that off too because that is now the replenishment for saying you don't have the right claim the right dare them to say you don't have it and buy them arresting you giving you ticket or whatever accusing you of not having it they just took that right away from you which is deprivation they are doing it illegally because they have been made aware and now you also print up another page ignorance of the law is no excuse especially by a law enforcement officer with that being said it senses everything besides the civil lawsuit that follows thereafter thank you I rest my case

  • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

    I'M POSTING IT ANYWAY, I DO WHAT I WANT!!

    Here are some excerpts to debunk commonly copy-pasted whackjob theories.

    CASE #1: "Many cases have been decided respecting the validity and construction of statutes and ordinances regulating their use upon public highways, and it has been uniformly held that the State, in the exercise of the police power, may regulate their speed and provide other reasonable rules and restrictions as to their use." Chicago Motor Coach v. City of Chicago 169 NE 221 (1929)

    CASE #2: "The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions." Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579 (1930)

    CASE #3: "And, as we have seen, the right of exit is a personal right included within the word "liberty" as used in the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the lawmaking functions of the Congress." Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116, 125 (1958)

    CASE #4: "The right to travel, to go from place to place as the means of transportation permit, is a natural right subject to the rights of others and to reasonable regulation under law." Shachtman v. Dulles 225 F.2d 938 (1955)

    • truthman

      Again your quotes reveil the answer to the quandary but you can not see it for some dam reason… here it is notice the key "Terms" which indicate not engaged in any form of transportation (transporting of passengers or property for compensation)

      "Motor -Coach-" "right to -drive-" "permits to -drive- an automobile -on- its streets" "as the -means- of -transportation- permit"
      These as the others do not lie they speak precisely as they say and never reference without some Term defined in the Statutes which constitutes a regulated activity.
      They carefully do not use the term "people" "unalienable right" and even when appearing to use the term "travel" they define what form of travel they are referring to "as a means of transportation" and then deceptively again sue the "natural right" true, an "subject to the rights of others" true.. we are not to trespass upon others Rights in our activities but cross the line "and to reasonable regulation under law" notice it does not stop at "regulation" but gives their out both by "as a means of transportation" and "under law" which refers back to the Code which then does not regulate any activity other than that which is specified and only after reading the whole damn thing can one discover that it regulates only various forms of "transportation" and "transportation" is defined in various ways as "transporting property or passengers for compensation"
      So even IF you were a "person" as defined (some entity or creation of the State) what really matters is the "activity" which you are engaged in at the time.. period!!
      This goes for property taxes, income taxes and every other law, Statutes, Codes etc out there!!! Again even they who are "persons" are not subject to 241 IF they are not engaged in the "injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate" any "inhabitant" (it used to say "person" but was corrected for obvious reasons, because "persons" must use the "administrative law" to which they are an agent of for their remedy. (I have actually represented someone in an administrative action who worked for Homeland Security and let me tell you that was a kangaroo bullshit activity if you ever saw one. I literally impeached every witness and got them to admit on the stand that they had not done their duty, had no first hand knowledge and actually lied on the stand.
      The appeals board said she had a civil case but she gave up like so many do… sad but true… 99% of people will give up… That is why they use the District BS non court of record to discourage people and simply pay the damn fine and get on with their lives.. it is extortion under threat, intimidation, and constitutes oppression and injury… but who knows of 18 USC 241, 242 never the less how to bring an action??
      Well we do and we are now willing to share it with others who are dooers, not cry babies who will fight us tooth and nail and cause disruption but those who are thankful to have an opportunity to finally succeed and make a difference.. Ameri-cans not "Ameri-cant's" Either you are part of the solution or you ARE the problem. Just because you and others may have lost before does not demand that I will loose too. Many have succeeded and will continue.. the more we succeed the easier it will be for others… notice too that most of the wins are hidden from view. I even found a case whish is blocked from every search engine. It is still there at the http which fortunately my student did as he was taught and copied the ural address on the copy and past of the case so that we could find it again…. perseverance my friend preserver.

      • Mark

        Great response my friend! I am currently trying to find information on what "rights" we sign away when we engage in a contract with DMV or BMV. It baffles me why US Citizens enjoy being entangled in a bunch of entangled red tape designed to steal and frustrate from the "people". It concerns me when folks, like the author of this blog, uses fear to attempt to get his point across to the masses… I believe he mentioned "more fatalities" towards the end of his argument. The folks who desire total control of the masses use fear as their biggest weapon…. So it's only natural for the sheeple to use it as well. I'm going a bit off subject but it still all ties together. I enjoyed reading your response though… Eyes wide open!

        • pseudolaw.com

          State legislation that hasn't been struck down by a court as violating higher law is considered enforceable against everyone in the generally-recognized territory of the State. The application of State law is not a contract – you don't have to apply for a license for it to apply to you. See e.g. City of Salina v. Wisden, wherein:

          "Consent to laws is not a prerequisite to their enforceability against individuals … The right to travel granted by the state and federal constitutions does not include the ability to ignore laws governing the use of public roadways."

          • Baffled

            Where does the national drivers registry fit into all of this?

          • pseudolaw.com
          • Chris

            I recently started learning about this topic and I'm not an expert and I have a couple questions.

            City of Salina v Wisden says
            "The right to travel granted by the state and federal constitutions"
            I was told that our rights are natural and the constitutions are written to restrain government. Does U.S. law view this as a right granted by the constitution? I'm a little confused.

            Also a friend that knows more about the topic showed me this
            "A soverign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends"
            -Kawananakoa v. Polybank
            U.S. (1907)

            Would this apply and would later Supreme Court opinions supersede? Thanks and great article!

          • The_Sage_Mage_of_Rage_Uncaged

            The perception is that this is all "Constitutional", but it is NOT. All of the policing, at the state level and municipality level is unconstitutional, as, it is the system of Admiralty, or Maritime law, the law of the high seas, or High C. International commerce regulation. Back when the Organic Constitution was rewritten for corporate purposes, the traitors in Congress 'deemed' every state border to be a waterway. Thus facilitating the misapplication of Maritime Admiralty, or, commerce regulation, for interstate trade. Admiralty, as utilized by D.C. views EVERYTHING, as commerce, every agreement as a contract, ALL PARTIES AS CORPORATE FICTIONS. Admiralty, is law, small L, the Constitution, is Law, capital L. They placed Admiralty between us people, and our Constitution, and, then reclassified us humans as legal fictions, creating, registering, and, operating for their own profit, corporations in our names, that look like this, JOHN SMITH, with all caps, or, Mr, John Smith, with a 'legal' title, both diminish your legal status, to that of a 'person', which ALL of their laws, statutes regulations, codes, etcetera, actually pertain to. Not one law on any book in the US, has any authority over any living breathing, human being, or 'natural person'…Every lawyer becoming a member of the BAR association, the British Accredited Registry, takes an oath to a foreign power, even those joining the American branch of the British Accredited Registry… Your lawyer/attorney, is NOT going to tell you the truth, but he just might make loads of cash representing you.
            Under the false fraudulent authority of Admiralty, everything is considered contractual, and all words in a contract, are defined, not with an English dictionary, but, with a law dictionary. In Black's Law dictionary, English words and terms, have VERY DIFFERENT definitions…

          • pseudolaw.com

            Hi, pretty much all of that is easily refuted. You should try debunking it sometime.

            I'll address a few…

            1. There is only one hand-written federal Constitution everyone still follows that can be viewed in high-res here. No corporation created under any country or state's laws can replace or overrule the sovereign nation-state of the United States based on this Constitution. It was never "re-written."

            2. Constitutionality in the US and States is determined by the courts pursuant to Article III of the federal constitution and related articles in the State constitutions. It is not for random individuals on the internet to decide. So where has a court agreed with your view that "all policing at the municipal and state level" is unconstitutional? This is an anarchist fantasy.

            3. You can see exactly how Laws (capital L) are created in the federal US by reading the Constitution, Article 1. Clearly Congress is allowed to make Laws. In the States, their legislatures are similarly established by the State constitution.

            4. In law, all "living men and women" are natural persons. You can't appear as a man or woman without being a natural person. You can't appear in law at all without a person, because a person is needed to hold the rights and duties. Yes, technically laws only apply to persons, but governments impose their law by force. If you don't provide a person they will make one for you, e.g. John Doe, so that laws can be enforced and order can be maintained. Society wouldn't last long if you could go on a killing spree and simply opt-out of the law, now would it?

            5. Caps are nonsense – no court anywhere recognizes a separate class of rights based on capitalization alone. Whether a man appears in all caps, mixed caps or no caps, he's a natural person at law. See e.g. this extensive list of related cases.

            6. The various BAR associations are created by the state and federal legislatures. They don't make the law, and they are not all-powerful. They can be abolished any time the legislatures want.

            7. Laws made by sovereign nation-states recognized under international law, and sub-states, are not considered contractual in any law or court on earth. Courts will readily admit this. See e.g. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10872398176234123252 wherein "Consent to laws is not a prerequisite to their enforceability against individuals."

            8. Black's law dictionary follows the numerous legislatures and courts, not the other way around. No court is bound to obey Black's law dictionary. The legislatures define words and where legislatures don't define them the courts may. If you want the proper definitions to use on a traffic charge, for example, you need to look at the top of the state traffic code, in the Definitions section.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Every word of that is complete crap. You can't provide a shred of credible evidence for any of it. The U.S. Constitution was not secretly rewritten. Congress never deemed every state border to be a waterway, and it wouldn't matter if they were. Admiralty law isn't the same thing as the law of contracts, and not everything in admiralty law is about contracts. Capitalization of names has no legal significance. There's no such thing as the "British Accredited Registry," and that's why your lawyer/attorney isn't going to tell you there is. Black's Law Dictionary is not a source of Law or law. It's a reference book published by a private company that's been updated nine times to keep up with the courts.

            You have no idea what you're talking about, but you're desperate to feel like you're in on the big secret. All you've done is blindly take scammers, liars, idiots, and pranksters at their word. If you honestly examined any of these claims instead of deciding that they must be true because somebody said so, you'd find that they're all bogus. But you won't examine them, because you're too excited about being so incredibly clever that you've figured out the conspiracy that doesn't exist.

            EDIT: If you're talking about the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, I've got news for you. That act did not replace the U.S. Constitution. All it did was organize the District of Columbia's city government, as Congress is empowered to do by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution. They weren't replacing the U.S. Constitution — they were acting on it.

          • The_Sage_Mage_of_Rage_Uncaged

            Why are ignorant people so hesitant to actually look up facts, as they first learn about them? I assume psuedolaw is just plain dishonest, as, most of what they post is skewed inaccurate and misleading, mainly in support of the entire system of fraud being used to enslave us. This is being done by agreement between the King of England and the Pope, when the Constitution was indeed rewritten for corporate purposes. In the corporate version, the original thirteenth amendment, was omitted, and replaced by the original fourteenth amendment, and the fourteenth amendment was changed to become an adhesion contract, fraudulently enslaving the population. No negro slaves were freed, emancipation is not a granting of freedom, it is a change of ownership from one sovereign to another, in this case, from the plantation/slave owner, to the federal corporation, look it up, the slaveowners were compensated for the loss of their property, their slaves. (FACT, THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT IN THE USA, DC is a corporation registered in Puerto Rico, traded on the NYSE. A corporation cannot serve a population, it must serve its stockholders, and, they are foreign interests, not We the People. Our Republics government was hijacked a long time ago). It is against international law to own a human being, so then, how does our ',government' claim to own us as chattel, or human livestock? That is part of their justification for spraying us with chemical poisons, and pathogens, explaining their absolute authority to conduct undisclosed medical experiments on an uninformed nonconsenting populace…
            I know what the hell I am talking about, you obviously are incredibly uninformed, a paid shill or a freemason traitor piece of crap…

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            This is being done by agreement between the King of England and the Pope, when the Constitution was indeed rewritten for corporate purposes.

            False.

            In the corporate version, the original thirteenth amendment, was omitted, and replaced by the original fourteenth amendment, and the fourteenth amendment was changed to become an adhesion contract, fraudulently enslaving the population.

            False.

            No negro slaves were freed, emancipation is not a granting of freedom, it is a change of ownership from one sovereign to another, in this case, from the plantation/slave owner, to the federal corporation

            False.

            FACT, THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT IN THE USA, DC is a corporation registered in Puerto Rico, traded on the NYSE.

            False.

            It is against international law to own a human being, so then, how does our ',government' claim to own us as chattel, or human livestock?

            It doesn't.

            That is part of their justification for spraying us with chemical poisons, and pathogens, explaining their absolute authority to conduct undisclosed medical experiments on an uninformed nonconsenting populace…

            Haha, chemtrails, that's adorable.

            I know what the hell I am talking about

            That's the falsest statement in that entire pot of conspiracy diarrhea.

          • http://cecillrussellforpresident.blogspot.com/ Cecil Lee Russell

            In 2002, in the misdemeanor case, State of Texas v Cecil Lee Russell, Randall County, Canyon, Texas for the charge of Speeding: 92 in a 70 resulted in a NOT GUILTY verdict BECAUSE there is NO SPEED LIMIT IN TEXAS for a non commercial vehicle.
            The charge, as read to the jury by the prosecutor, stated: The recommended speed limit in Texas on an Interstate highway shall be 70 m.p.h. or as fast as conditions and circumstances is reasonable and prudent."

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Considering how you misinterpreted the four cases you cited about licenses, I don't believe that's what happened. You might have been acquitted, but I highly doubt it was because there's no speed limit in Texas for a non-commercial vehicle. On the other hand, that would hardly be the strangest thing that's happened in court or in law. Did you get any paperwork from the clerk explaining the court's reasoning? I'm intensely skeptical, but I'm also very excited by the prospect of getting to annoy the site owner with it.

            EDIT: Ohhh, right, jury trial. My mistake. Yeah, juries can do anything for any reason. They don't have to explain themselves, and they can vote not guilty because they don't like speed limits, they don't like the cop, they like your hair, they think the prosecutor was a jerk, or any other reason. If there was no speed limit in Texas for a non-commercial vehicle, why would that charge even get before a jury in the first place?

            P.S., I googled "State of Texas v. Cecil Lee Russell," and all I see is a post on Facebook describing a legal horror story spanning decades. If that's you and the information is accurate, you've been badly mistreated. Dishonest prosecutors can be some of the most vile, depraved criminals around.

            If your license grievance stems from the APD seizing your license unlawfully, then I can understand why you might be desperate to find some rationalization for the idea that you didn't need a license anyway. The trouble is that the law doesn't work that way, and sometimes injustice is injustice. If a burglar steals your TV set, then your TV set has been stolen and you can't watch it. There is no magic trick that means you never needed a TV set to watch TV. The fact of the matter is that you've been the victim of injustice, and now you can't drive lawfully. The first step in solving this isn't to retreat into pseudolegal mumbo-jumbo. If the local courts are that corrupt and abusive, then I think there are a lot of people who'd like to blow the lid off of it. I'm one of 'em.

          • juanjo54

            Well first of all there is no way of knowing whether this story is accurate or not. But taking it on limited face value, the charge read to the jury is a quote from the Prima Facie Speed Limit section [545.352 [a] as well as section [b][2] of Texas Transportation Code. That law sets up a prima facie speed law for all transit on state and federal highways in urban areas. The law sets an upper limit of 70 but allows a police officer to stop and cite some one driving at or below that speed based upon the conditions at the time of driving – weather, time of day, amount of traffic, road surface condition etc. The wording is sloppy both in the charger to the jury as well as the Texas statute.

            545.352 is a type of law known as a "basic speed" law which exist in all states in some form. Basically they say that regardless of any specific speed limit set by law, the actual speed limit at the time of driving is based upon the conditions existing at that time. Juries have been known in some cases to apply that law is a manner inconsistent to its intended use. Sometimes they like the defendants, sometimes they hate the cop and sometimes they just think the circumstances stink so they do a little jury nullification.

            In this case we have no idea what actually happened since we do not have either the transcript nor any ruling of the court on the matter. But one thing is clear from a simple read of 545.352 – your claim of no speed limits for non-commercial vehicles is false. The law does set out very specific speed limits for all vehicles including some specifically for commercial vehicles only.

          • http://cecillrussellforpresident.blogspot.com/ Cecil Lee Russell

            The fundamental error of your logic is to not look at All of the relevant facts. While the section of the Texas Transportation code you cite is accurate, the error is that the "actual speed limit" is not set for non commercial traffic. In order for a citizen traveling in a non commercial capacity to be lawfully cited for speeding, there must first be a specific speed established and for non commercial vehicles there is not. Your first response would probably be: There are speed limit signs posted on every road and you would be partially correct because in Texas, posted speed limits are for commercial traffic ONLY.
            Texas Transportation Code Sec. 201.904. SPEED SIGNS. The department shall erect and maintain on the highways and roads of this state appropriate signs that show the maximum lawful speed for commercial motor vehicles, truck tractors, truck trailers, truck semitrailers, and motor vehicles engaged in the business of transporting passengers for compensation or hire (buses).

            Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

            In Texas, there are no other speed limit signs posted ANY WHERE IN THE STATE for Non Commercial Vehicles. This section IS THE ONLY REFERENCE to speed signs anywhere in the Code. The citation for speeding requires that an accused must have some actual notice posted on the roads and highways for the specific type of vehicle but the LAW says that the posted signs are for commercial vehicles only. As I said, there is no speed limit in Texas for non commercial vehicles.
            Additionally, the Texas Transportation Code SPECIFICALLY states in regards to speeding:
            SUBCHAPTER H. SPEED RESTRICTIONS
            Sec. 545.351. MAXIMUM SPEED REQUIREMENT. (a) An operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing.
            (b) An operator:
            (1) may not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for actual and potential hazards then existing;
            AND
            (2) shall control the speed of the vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with another person or vehicle that is on or entering the highway in compliance with law and the duty of each person to use
            due care.
            (c) An operator shall, consistent with Subsections (a) and (b),
            drive at an appropriate reduced speed if:
            (1) the operator is approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad grade crossing;
            (2) the operator is approaching and going around a curve;
            (3) the operator is approaching a hill crest;
            (4) the operator is traveling on a narrow or winding roadway; and
            (5) a special hazard exists with regard to traffic, including pedestrians, or weather or highway conditions.
            Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
            Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 30.109, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

          • juanjo54

            Your entire argument falls based upon two important facts. First – Sec 545.352 DOES set maximum speed limits for ALL traffic and specifically sets speed limits for commercial traffic and school buses separate from other traffic. Second, the section also gives the TDOT the authority to post signs along the different categories of roadways indicating the maximum speed limits. The fact that the statute also gives the TDOT the right to set different speed limits for commercial vehicle and to post signs concerning those speed limits does not revoke the right already established regarding all traffic on public roadways.

            Texas Transportation Code § 545.352
            Texas Transportation Code § 545.352

            I would point you that under the basic premise of the law, ignorance of a a law is no excuse. Look it up in Blacks Law Dictionary and discover that is a concept that goes back to very founding of modern Anglo-Saxon law. The Texas Prima Facie Speed Law is not a secret law. It is published law, it is included in published hand outs given to the driving public by the DMV. It is posted on websites by the TDOT and the TDMV. It is one of the subjects covered on the driving test. You sovereign idiots cannot ignore it by shutting your eyes real tight and plugging your ears going blah, blah, blah at the top of your lungs and then claim you had no notice.

          • pseudolaw.com

            Please post a case # or link to the decision of the court. Nothing comes up in the county case search for your name at http://odysseypa.tylerhost.net/Randall/default.aspx

        • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

          Do YOU have any evidence that a shred of what he said is true? I'm willing to declare that it's all self-serving jabberwocky that has nothing to do with reality, but I'm also willing to listen to any evidence either of you have that English becomes a secret code discernible only by conspiracy theorists when used by lawmakers, lawyers, or judges.

        • The_Sage_Mage_of_Rage_Uncaged

          We sign away no rights, we are fooled into thinking we have. There are no valid binding contracts signed. Approved applications, are not contracts. Contracts require two signatory's, and, all conditions and clauses must be disclosed, no deception is allowed. Deceiving someone into signing a contract, nullifies and voids that contract, so does not disclosing any information, or vague terminology.

          • pseudolaw.com

            The relationship of individuals, men and women (in law, always considered natural persons), whether unidentified, stateless or citizens, to the government is not considered contractual in any court or under any law. The local nation-state and sub-states simply rule their recognized territory by force. Pursuant to international law, hundreds of other countries recognize the US right to do so.

            "Consent to laws is not a prerequisite to their enforceability against individuals." https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10872398176234123252

            "Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals." Thomas Jefferson (1781)

            "No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor." Theodore Roosevelt (1903)

      • Firstknowthyself

        Hey Truthman you're talking my language – Bro. Please shoot me an email at firstknowthyself@gmail.com. I'd like to discuss how we can work together on so things.

      • juanjo54

        This is complete gibberish making no sense whatsoever. It is an argument made by taking little snippets out of the statutes, Constitution and court decisions and twisting it into something it is not. Any resident has the right to move form one state to another but that right is subject to reasonable restrictions by the several states. So for example if you were driving along on your way from say Illinois to Indiana and decided the the roadway you are on is not the most direct route, you cannot simply cut across other people's property without their permission. Likewise the state has the right under the Constitution to allow travel upon its public roadways but only subject to reasonable restrictions as to the manner and method of travel. This means you cannot operate a Sherman tank or a semitrailer for example without it being street legal and you showing you are capable of operating it safely. It also means annoying little things like following speed limits, lane restrictions etc.

        There are countless cases on file in all 50 states and in the federal courts in which the nut case brigade argues that somehow the freedom of movement from one state to another [which they refer to as the right to travel] cannot be impeded by any laws. But that is not accurate. There are certain rights allowed in the Constitution – the right to speak, to religious belief and practice, to assembly etc. But these rights are not unlimited on scope. Speech can be limited although the standard followed in doing so is very strict. One's religion can teach and indeed demand that some acts be performed or not performed as the case may be. But that does not mean that you will not go to jail if for example you try to burn a witch, stone and adulterer or behead a homosexual. Neither are you allowed to pick out some random bastard once a year from the town population, strip him of all his property and chase him out of town as a scapegoat. Further if your religion says human sacrifice is needed once a year to make the crops grow well good luck trying to get away with that little escapade.

        So as numerous court cases establish this mythical "right to travel without the need of a driver's license" is just so much hokum. States can restrict the operation of a motorized vehicle to those who have demonstrated by means of a written and/or practical examination that they are competent to drive a motor vehicle. They just cannot refuse to issue a drivers license because they hate your guys. They can however if you have a mental or physical condition which makes your operation of the vehicle a danger. Which brings up a problem a lot of these so-called sovereign citizens have – they are serious drunks or abuse alcohol or are as nutty as a fruit cake. Sometimes all three.

        • http://cecillrussellforpresident.blogspot.com/ Cecil Lee Russell

          Just a few questions. What is a "driver"? There is no statutory definition of a driver in Texas, only an "operator." What is a "license"? Every "license" definition in Texas law is commercial in nature. What is "transportation"? What is "Vehicle"? What is "Motor Vehicle"? Statutes MUST be in clear unambiguous language.
          For example, in Texas, many people are cited for "speeding." Here is the way the statute used to charge someone with "speeding" is worded.
          SUBCHAPTER H. SPEED RESTRICTIONS
          Sec. 545.351. MAXIMUM SPEED REQUIREMENT.
          (a) An operator may
          not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the
          circumstances then existing.
          (b) An operator:
          (1) may not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for actual and potential hazards then existing;
          and
          (2) shall control the speed of the vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with another person or vehicle that is on or entering the highway in compliance with law and the duty of each person to use due care.
          (c) An operator shall, consistent with Subsections (a) and (b), drive at an appropriate reduced speed if:
          (1) the operator is approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad grade crossing;
          (2) the operator is approaching and going around a curve;
          (3) the operator is approaching a hill crest;
          (4) the operator is traveling on a narrow or winding roadway;
          and
          (5) a special hazard exists with regard to traffic, including pedestrians, or weather or highway conditions.
          Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended
          by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 30.109, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

          In Texas law, there is only one statute which describes and defines what a speed limit sign is and its purpose.
          Sec. 201.903. CLASSIFICATION, DESIGNATION, AND MARKING OF
          HIGHWAYS.
          (a) The department may classify, designate, and mark state highways in this state.
          (b) The department may provide a uniform system of marking and signing state highways under the control of the state. The system must correlate with and, to the extent possible, conform to the system adopted in other states.
          Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
          Sec. 201.904. SPEED SIGNS.
          The department shall erect and maintain on the highways and roads of this state appropriate signs that show the maximum lawful speed for commercial motor vehicles, truck tractors, truck trailers, truck semitrailers, and motor
          vehicles engaged in the business of transporting passengers for compensation or hire (buses).
          Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
          Where does it state that the "operator" of a personal "non commercial motor vehicle" is required to comply with the highway speed limits signs that are CLEARLY ESTABLISHED FOR THE REGULATION OF COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC? Yet you can go to any municipal court in Texas and observe municipal courts fining people for speeding. This is the kind of crap that you support and demand the enforcement of by STEALING MONEY from citizens under false pretenses.
          Just sayin…

          • juanjo54

            Yup, like I said. Taking sections of law and re-interpreting them. Let's just look at the actual wording of the Texas law.

            Transportation Code Chapter 521, Section 521.001:
            (3) "Driver's license" means an authorization issued by the department for the operation of a motor vehicle. The term includes:

            (A) a temporary license or instruction permit; and

            (B) an occupational license.

            [Note the use of the term "includes" followed by a reference to an instruction permit/temporary license as well as an occupational license. Includes does NOT mean exclusive. There is nothing here which makes a requirement to have a driver's license in order to drive on the public road limited to those engaged in a business.]

            Section 521.001:
            (6) "License" means an authorization to operate a motor vehicle that is issued under or granted by the laws of this state. The term includes:

            (A) a driver's license;

            (B) the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle regardless of whether the person holds a driver's license; and

            (C) a nonresident's operating privilege.

            [Note – again no mention of any limitation to a commercial in nature activity.]

            The fact is that Cecil, like many others of his ilk takes snippets of laws out of the context of the statutes in which they are found, applies his own personal definitions to terms and some twisted argument to come up with his claims.

          • http://cecillrussellforpresident.blogspot.com/ Cecil Lee Russell

            What is a driver? You failed to address that issue. The highest court on Texas, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals declares that you are wrong. Campbell v State; No. 27245. Tex .Crim. App. "This proof is insufficient
            to 'sustain the allegations of the offense charged in the information
            because a driver's license is not an operator's license. We have held
            that there is no such license as a driver's license known to our
            law.”] Quoting Hassell v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 333, 194 S.W.2d 400;
            Holloway v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 484, 237 S.W. 2d 303; and Brooks v.
            State, Tex.Cr.App., 258 S.W.2d 317. GEE v. STATE, 626 S.W.2d 603,
            Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana., Discretionary Review Refused
            March 31, 1982.

            The requirement to obtain and possess a "driver's license" in Texas was
            established in 1954. All of these cases were decided AFTER that law
            was established and the reason is because there is NO STATUTORY
            DEFINITION OF DRIVER known in Texas Law. It is ambiguous at best. A
            statute can not be vague or ambiguous to be Constitutional.

            The right to travel without undue restriction was the very first right recognized as a fundamental liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Randall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 35 (1867).
            Driver's License was not addressed because the con-men in government
            had not yet discovered how much money could be made by the creation
            of that item-in Texas it is a 9-10 BILLION dollar a year industry.

            Just because a legislature enacts a statute does not make that statute
            constitutional. An example is the Obamacare Supreme Court decision.
            It is unconstitutional BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW. According to Federal law, 28 USC sec 455, a Judge cannot be both a lawyer on a case AND be a deciding Judge on the same case.
            Elana Kegan was the Solicitor General defending the governments'
            position on Obamacare in every Federal District Court challenge.
            Elena Kegan was the Solicitor General for the government during
            appeals and then appointed to the Supreme Court before that case
            arrived to the Supreme Court. By Federal Law, Elena Kegan IS
            PROHIBITED FROM PARTICIPATING in any function concerning that
            decision. Because Elana Kegan voted on the decision, the law is
            CONSTITUTIONALLY NULL AND VOID. Just because a law is passed and even if the law is obeyed, does not make the law Constitutional. Likewise
            state mandates to obtain a drivers license. Most who cite the 10th Amendment always cite the part about “reserved to the State” but fail to consider “or the people.” The right to travel by whatever means the citizen chooses is a Right that ranks ABOVE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, ASSEMBLY, or The Press. The Right to travel is a Liberty Right, these others were added later on after the Constitution was written. Moreover, the power of the state is a created power, the Inalienable Rights of Citizens existed BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT WAS CREATED.

          • juanjo54

            As I said, making shit up. Parsing out language and attempting to make it fit some made up issue. 521.001 require ANY person operating a motor vehicle on a public road to have a license to do so. Section 541.001 [1] states "Operator" means, as used in reference to a motor vehicle, a person who drives or has physical control of a vehicle.

            All you are really doing is playing around with nonsensical attempts to make mountains of molehills.

            For example Gee v State specifically refers to your "issue". The court stated:

            "Part of the State's
            proof in this case was an affidavit of the custodian of the records of
            the driver and vehicle records division of the Department of Public
            Safety which stated that appellant was issued a Texas Driver's license, which was issued as a Texas Operator's license No.
            01205146 and that such driver's license was suspended on July 22, 1980,
            pursuant to an affirmative finding of the municipal court of Bonham,
            Fannin County, Texas, under the provisions of § 22 of Article 6687b.
            That evidence is sufficient to show that appellant's operator's license
            was suspended. The fact that the Department of Public Safety used both
            terms in referring to the license does not create a fatal variance
            between the pleading and the proof." Gee v State, 626 S.W.2d 603, 604 (1981).

            The issue in Campbell was that the pleading said one term and the law said another and the state put on no evidence to show issuance of either.

            Similarly the other cases you cite refer to situations where the state did not use the proper language and did not provide the proper proof. For example in Halloway the DA chrged the offense of driving without a driving license, instead of driving without a commercial operator's license since the man was cited for driving a commercial truck with a commercial operator's license which is a specific classification of license.

          • RandomGuy

            You sir are blinded by your own bias and cannot see the logical fallacy in what you are preaching. You claim to state how the States have the right regulate traffic. You quote the articles of legislation that support your case directly and acknowledge them as laws. However, all of those articles are exactly that. Therefore, all of the words and terms in those articles have very specific legal definitions. So you slander and name call at the people who point that out to you if those definitions do not support your case anymore when defined? If you believe that these regulations were put in place so deliberately to function as they are and that the people who put them there were so educated and precise in their meaning and application then why on earth would the definitions of these terms not match up to how they are being applied?

          • juanjo54

            this comment is complete gibberish. No substance at all.

          • pseudolaw.com

            If you want to correctly define the words used on a particular charge you have to look at the top of the chapter, part and/or title in the federal or state code the charge is brought under.

            e.g. in NC legislation you can clearly see there is no commercial requirement for driver licensing:

            § 20-4.01. Definitions.

            (7) Driver. – The operator of a vehicle, as defined in subdivision (25). The terms "driver" and "operator" and their cognates are synonymous.

            (13) Highway. – The entire width between property or right-of-way lines of every way or place of whatever nature, when any part thereof is open to the use of the public as a matter of right for the purposes of vehicular traffic. The terms "highway" and "street" and their cognates are synonymous.

            (23) Motor Vehicle. – Every vehicle which is self-propelled and every vehicle designed to run upon the highways which is pulled by a self-propelled vehicle …

            (25) Operator. – A person in actual physical control of a vehicle which is in motion or which has the engine running. The terms "operator" and "driver" and their cognates are synonymous.

            (49) Vehicle. – Every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon fixed rails or tracks …

            Then use those definitions in combination with the laws, e.g.:

            § 20-7. Issuance and renewal of drivers licenses.
            (a) License Required. – To drive a motor vehicle on a highway, a person must be licensed by the Division under this Article or Article 2C of this Chapter to drive the vehicle and must carry the license while driving the vehicle.

            http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_20.html

          • juanjo54

            You make the absurd statement that:

            "Just because a legislature enacts a statute does not make that statute constitutional. An example is the Obamacare Supreme Court decision. It
            is unconstitutional BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW.
            According to Federal law, 28 USC sec 455, a Judge cannot be both a
            lawyer on a case AND be a deciding Judge on the same case.

            Elana Kegan was the Solicitor General defending the governments' position on Obamacare in every Federal District Court challenge.Elena Kegan was the Solicitor General for the government during appeals and then appointed to the Supreme Co
            urt before that case
            arrived to the Supreme Court. By Federal Law, Elena Kegan IS PROHIBITED FROM PARTICIPATING in any function concerning that decision. Because Elana Kegan voted on the decision, the law is CONSTITUTIONALLY
            NULL AND VOID. Just because a law is passed and even if the law is
            obeyed, does not make the law Constitutional."

            The fact is that there is no actual evidence of this. It was an allegation made by a right wing group which took language from the memo written by a third party to another person in which that person says they should involve Kagan in the planning of the appeal strategy and another memo where he asks if Kagan was available to attend a meeting. Shortly after those memos were written, Kagan was nominated to the court. At that point the same parties involved in the prior two memos states she should not be involved in any for the strategy discussions. There is no evidence she was so involved – no minutes of meetings, no memos, no agendas indicating she was so scheduled, and she has stated she was not involved in any substantive discussion regarding the appeal.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            It appears that in Texas, the definition of the term "driver" is irrelevant when the term "driver's license" is defined and required in a way that doesn't require the term "driver" to be defined.

            In other words, it doesn't matter at all what a driver is. It only matters who's required to have a thing called a "driver's license."

            Your citations (Campbell, Hassell, Holloway, and Brooks) are all at least 60 years old and revolve around the correct wording of a charge. There is nothing in any of those four cases that suggests that the operator's license requirement was or is unlawful. The only thing they establish is that when you're prosecuting somebody, the court isn't going to tolerate mistakes in charging language. If they had been charged with driving without a valid operator's license, the judges wouldn't have thrown the charges out.

          • Michael Kingston

            This is all fine to break down the codes of the states The fact that people were travaling freely without any more type or proof of idenity that their bible.As you know as a worker in the corporation known as the united stares All codes and sections and clauses in the system.Are not there to protect the products of the US ( tht would be a so called citizen) they are there to make money for the never full always wanting more Fat Cats who run the world And you can interpet this statement anyway you want .But all codes and sublaws made after the constitution are all about money.And to make it even more funny THERE IS NO MONEY EVERYTHING IS A PROMISDSRY NOTE

          • juanjo54

            This is dribble with no actual evidence to support it. The fact is that if you wish to travel freely you have the complete right to do so as people have done for millennia. Pack a bag and hit the road – walk, ride a bicycle, hitch a ride, but a bus or airplane or train ticket or post an advert on a rode share website. No one will stop you form going anywhere in the country you wish to go. There are thousands of people who do it every year.

            But if you wish to drive a motor vehicle or fly a plane you will have to pass the appropriate test to qualify to do so and when you do, you will have to follow the same rules of the road as everyone else. Don't like it? Tough luck Buffy. No one cares and everyone thinks you are a complete fool.

          • Thumbtack Mike

            then how do you explain the international driving privilege? anyone can go anywhere and drive without proof of test or licensing. according to the convention, this includes "drivers coming from countries that do not require a domestic pernit".

            I lived in Spain for many years and the cops had a huge problem with wrapping their heads around the fact that "Spain is NOT a world" and Spain is NOT different". Just retarded. They couldnt understand how "no record found" still meant "legal to drive". Cops in America must be Spanish.

          • juanjo54

            An international drivers license requires a valid license in the state where the holder is a legal resident in order to be legally issued. It is a privilege recognized by treaty between different countries. It has nothing to do with the Constitution or the issues discussed here.

          • Thumbtack Mike

            nope, read the convention. the idp may "especially be required in the case of drivers coming from countries that do not require a permit". Art 24 i believe.

            an idp is just a paper booklet from a travel agency. how will the police in Alabama verify any of them. the key is "transportation activity".

            transportation is a subset of "Commerce". Illinois Vehicle Code definitions look it up

            whats happening is a conflict between the obvious fact that either i am verifiably licensed or i am not. yet anyone from around the world can drive legally pretty much anywhere regardless of citizenship. I go to Germany they cannot check my license from Japan you come from Albania they cannot check your license in Nebraska.

            Somerimes "no record found" is a good thing and other times its presumed to be incriminating. But just looking at a card by the roaddide is not verification, thats merely display and inspection. License from Korea? They cant. "Staring' is not a substitute for verification. "I looked at the key and it seemed real".

            The several States here didnt used to have immediate communication to check licenses either. Not finding a record of driving license by itself cannot be incriminating.

            Its the same system and same conflict in every country.

          • pseudolaw.com

            Anything can be incriminating depending on local law, and every country and state is different. Depending on the quality of your forgery yeah you might be able to cheat a bit… but what does this have to do with the right to travel in the US? Get back on topic.

          • Thumbtack Mike

            oh so its forgery now? forge this- all standards are the same everywhere, so you"re obviously lying. Police see no record found in licensure database, they think its bad, unless mystified like you by a good looking forgery. The Bundesrepublik Deutschland forges an excellent german driver license so im told, but it still cant be checked in Ohio, and gazing is not a substitute; and it is valid for no purpose outside mitteleuropa.

          • Bobby velo2

            Can you help me out and explain this please? How did she get away with driving?

          • Drcorrado
          • Bobby velo2

            Explain this…? The cop had to be naive..

            https://youtu.be/Ba_Rz4uj4DI

          • juanjo54

            So here we have another example of a person cherry picking sections of a treaty to suit his own purpose.

            Chapter 4, Art 4, section 1 of the 1949 Treaty states that it covers all drivers meaning any person who drives a vehicle or is in control of the same. It also states that a motor vehicle is any self-propelled vehicle used for the transports of persons or goods.

            Art 5 states the treaty does NOT apply to commercial drivers.

            Chapter 5, Art 24 states that

            1. Each signatory shall allow a person legally admitted to its territory AND who holds a valid driving permit issued to him by another signatory state or subdivision of the state legally authorized to enter such permits, to drive on its road. [Note the requirement that the person be legally licensed in another signatory state.

            2. A signatory state may if it desires require that in addition to number 1, it may require any driver admitted inside its borders to carry an international driving permit, especially if the person comes from a state where a domestic permit is not required.

            The international permit is a document with translations in 10 languages of the document permitting the person holding it to drive legally in his country of origin. It is not a substitute for a driver's license.

            If we read what you have written what you are saying is that you have played a game of cat and mouse with the legal authorities in other countries using a fraudulently filled out international driving permit which is supposed to list you information from you state issued driver's license. Good luck with that if you are still doing it.

            As for your assertions that a police authority in Germany cannot check to see if you have any license in say the United States, that was true once upon a time but is no longer. The cop may not want to bother for something minor. He may instead send you on your way or even in some countries ignore the matter for a small bribe. But eventually you are going to find your luck running out and I hope you enjoy sitting in a jail in a foreign country. Most people do not consider that the highlight of their traveling experience.

          • Thumbtack Mike

            you are a complete dumbass. my story? I lived in Spain for 8 years without ANY papers, forged or not. If you can pick enough cherries to fill a bowl, notice what you actually cited, Art 24- "including drivers from countries where no domestic permit is required". The standard is not an abstraction about "furrin purrmits".

            The whole point was that local cops there continually tried to charge me for driving without a permit. Judge said "prove it", but they cant. The mere fact "no license record found" is nothing at all. Every international driving action happens "no record found". The problem is you have defied the basic instruction on the cover of any IDP- "this is not a license". Its impossible to "forge" an IDP, there is no original- its a stapled booklet that lets people communicate between languages.

            If you want to learn something, go find the Fiscal Jefe of Navarra and his exposition on the ramifications of driving laws in Spain. Its the same everywhere.

            nterpretación del art. 384 CP, introducido por LO15/2007, relativo a la conducción sin permiso o licencia

          • juanjo54

            All I am seeing is a person who decides to be insulting and who has no idea what the entire treaty says or if he does has decided to ignore what the other provisions state.

            Art 24, section one specifically states the treaty only applies to those with a valid driving permit issued by their country of origin. It is a voluntary agreement which various countries have entered into to allow people from different countries to drive in other countries without having to apply for and take the qualifying test for a driving permit in the country they are now in.

            You very words indicate that the judge required the police to prove that you were driving without a permit and because they had not followed the proper procedures for doing so he would not convict you. Judges in the US will do the same if the prosecutor does not prove the basis of his accusation. You have taken that and attempted to turn it into something it isn't.

            Like I said, good luck with that because eventually a cop with a brain is going to nail your as to the pavement.

          • Thumbtack Mike

            since you are smarter than everyone else, prove I am driving without a required permit:

            1. I am driving a private automobile

            2. There is no record of a driver license for me.

            3. This is the lawful condition for millions of valid drivers every year.

            hint: you'll need more evidence.

          • juanjo54

            Classic logical fallacy. The burden is on you to prove that you are doing what you are doing and that there is a verifiable legal basis for it. You may be telling a complete lie. You may in fact be driving an automobile without a license. If you that probes nothing other than you are in violation of the laws of the jurisdiction where you reside absent some proof to the contrary. So you are no different than any low life gang-banger or undocumented immigrant who does exactly the same thing.

            But the fact is that even if you are in some foreign country driving on forged documents, that has nothing to do with how the Constitution interacts with state law in the United States.

          • Thumbtack Mike

            oh so now the burden of proof is in the defendant?? thats not true anywhere at all, except maybe north korea. you cant do any better than a real prosecutor or police officer, because for the same reason, there isnt actually evidence of breaking the law. I dont know why you insist on "forged documents", im talking about NO DOCUMENTS. NO RECORDS NO DOCUMENTS AND NO PROOF EITHER WAY.

            If you dont understand how that relates to the American Constituition i cant help it. Another hint: learn about

            "due process" and "equal protection"

            See thats the problem with these supposedly "debunking" websites- im supposed to prove that i am positively entitled to one thing or another, and you are the judge. nice rules, for you. now come affect them in the real world. youll find out its a different ball of wax.

          • pseudolaw.com

            Let us know when you win damages or get a declaratory judgment that clearly shows the US or State courts agree with your interpretation.

          • juanjo54

            Sorry troll but that dog won't hunt. You have made a claim here about what you are doing. You have the burden of proving the facts supporting your statement.

            As for your obsession with the US Constitution, it does not apply outside the United States.

            But again, none of this is relevant to the issue at hand here. You are just engaged in red herrings arguments.

          • pseudolaw.com

            You should be able to actually prove this by finding a court decision in the public record that shows a judge's interpretation aligns with yours, or showing where someone has won damages against the state for being arrested for driving without a license. Why don't these exist past the early 1900s?

          • Damon Schneider

            You do not pursue damages from the state, you pursue damages from the individual who personally made the arrest. These cases do exist for false arrest in which is just that, a false arrest.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            If the arrest was made in good faith, you're not going to have much luck going after the individual officer.

          • Damon Schneider

            Wrong. Officer swore to uphold the Constitution state and federal. If damages are loss of wages, impounding of vehicle ect. ect. where the officer should have known and the person informed him of his natural born status of free travel by automobile upheld by the Supreme Court of this land then that officer maybe sued personally for damages to be paid out of his own pocket. NOBODY is above the law. Everybody is bound by the same. One has a Grievance that Grievance must be sought Constitutionally through a district court. Not municipal. Municipal laws or municipal courts have no jurisdiction over natural born state citizens unless that citizen converts his rights over by way of LICENSE of ANY KIND. Period. All anyone person really needs to do is write your state legislator and ask them to show you where a natural born state private citizen is bound by any municipal law if not licensed converting your rights over. See the answer you get.

          • pseudolaw.com

            Yes, State officers swear to uphold the State constitution, which includes the laws made under the State legislature created by the State constitution, which includes State vehicle codes. State officers and judges are paid by the State to enforce State law.

            Please cite the Supreme Court case you think gives you the right to travel freely by automobile on the public roads without regulation, whether you're blind, drunk or whatever. Let's just ignore the fact that the federal government has clearly left the vast majority of highway regulation up to the several States, as cited by the article.

            Receiving a response from someone or not doesn't prove anything. Only the courts ultimately have the authority to decide what is and isn't lawful. So look around on Google Scholar and find cases that address the issues directly, like this.

          • Damon Schneider

            WRONG, you cant legislate against the Constitution State Federal or otherwise, they can add Amendments, very hard to do. Anything else legislated is simply MUNICIPAL LAWS in which do not apply to State Citizens unless voluntarily by way of converting inalienable rights by contract through as license of some sort. Supreme Court has declared that if a law is repugnant to the Constitution, it is not and cannot be a law imposed upon the Citizenry, it can only be municipal
            law which has no affect upon Citizens of the States united.
            “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
            rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 463

            “An unconstitutional act is not law; it
            confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it
            creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as
            though it had never been passed.” – Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425

            “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law
            of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and
            void of law.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137

          • pseudolaw.com

            The courts are in charge of interpreting whether things are constitutional or lawful, not individuals. If the courts don't interpret things how the people want then the legislature can change the constitution or legislation to make it more certain. If the legislature fails to do what the people want then the only solution is violent revolution. Personally I don't think it's time for revolution yet in most western countries, which are ahead of others as far as equality and civil rights are concerned. I think worse countries should probably be reformed first.

          • Damon Schneider

            WRONG!!!!!! The courts are not to interpret ANYTHING!!! Our grievances are to be handled by a Jury of our peers based on evidence. No grievance no court. There is one rightful court, The Supreme Court and the Law is what it says it is, the Founders were BRILLIANT MEN, The law (Constitution) was written in plain understandable English, not to be interpreted but UPHELD!!!! You have been indoctrinated, duped and tricked to think the courts are the superiority. They are not in fact there was a time when the people over ruled the Supreme Court. It is now and always will be WE THE PEOPLE!!!! This day we have too many indoctrinated pussies. Which brings one to Bible prophecy that I will refrain from this forum but America is dying and its dying by the indoctrinated many like you. Pretty Sad really but Common Law is a real thing. It is a real system of laws derived from centuries of work, study and sacrifice of millions of people. It is not trivial and inconsequential as some would have you think. It is the Common Law that is most represented within Our Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Our Bill of Rights. These documents were designed to limit and eliminate the vicious Equity, Maritime or Admiralty Law which was what we revolted against as Our Revolution against the totalitarianism of England.

            Did you know the Anglo-American system (Our system) of jurisprudence is the only one which developed out of what is called the Common Law, that is, the general law of private property known in the British Isles? It is true – Common Law was designed through the centuries to secure the rights of individuals (you and me) to property and to make it difficult for property to be taken away from us by a government or governmental structure (bureaucracy) without due process of law. The Common Law was expounded over the years in hundreds of thousands of case decisions as a result of trials in which the Common Law jury acted as the Judges, and in which they exercised the authority to hear and decide questions of both Law and fact. Common Law deals with legal relationships, powers and liabilities, and types of actions rather than theoretical definitions of abstract legal concepts. The Common Law was recognized by Our Founding Fathers and is the basis of all law in America today.

            The Common Law recognizes the Power of Government lies in the common people and not in an elite group of power brokers. It is the terrible Equity, Maritime or Admiralty Laws (laws of contract) that steals this power from the people and centralizes it into the hands of a few power oriented men. The Common Law deals in real property whereas the Equity Laws deal in written abstractions of performance (agreements or contracts). In other words, Masters own their own property, work and destiny. We are all Masters when we truly own our own property. Slaves do not own property, they usually rent property of another and are compelled to perform upon or with that rented (tenured) property according to some agreement or contract.

            It is from such controversies involving property that all of our Rights have come. Property is known as Substance at the Common Law, and includes hard Money in the form of gold and silver coin as required by Our federal Constitution and every other State Constitution as they were all drafted to be in perfect harmony one with another.

            Controversies involving these matters carry with them a Law jurisdiction, a jurisdiction in which all of our Rights are found. The Judge in a Court of Common Law is an impartial referee of the dispute, and he is bound to protect the Rights of the parties to the dispute, or he will have lost whatever jurisdiction he may have had, or claimed to have had. It is the Jury who decides whether or not the Facts of the case are valid and they also decide the Law – does it apply? Is it correct for this case?, etc. Only judges acting under equity law can decide law…

            You know you are in an Equity/Admiralty Court when an American flag is displayed that has a GOLD trim. The gold trim denotes military jurisdiction and not Common Law or Constitutional jurisdiction. Wherever this flag is flown the Constitution is NOT.

          • pseudolaw.com

            The Constitution can be amended, changed or completely repealed as Congress or the States see fit. So how is it so shocking to you that the federal and State governments can also make laws according to the legislative clauses of their constitutions?

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            I don't know if you realize it, but the Common Law was actually invented to organize the courts in England so that King Henry II could rule it more effectively as a sovereign monarch.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Upheld by the Supreme Court when? The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the validity of licensing and registration laws, not the opposite.

          • Damon Schneider

            WRONG, I have already posted the rulings for your convenience, you chose to dismiss as tedious screeds.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            You have pasted excerpts from other cases not related to the issue at hand. You have not cited any case where licensing and registration laws are invalidated. Note that there is a right to travel, but this is not a right to operate a motor vehicle without any restrictions.

          • Damon Schneider

            YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL OPERATING AN AUTOMOBILE WITHOUT A LICENSE OF ANY SORT!!!!! PERIOD Restrictions??? or Morals???A sound mind and body can travel down the highway being morally polite to your surroundings. If your referring to traveling like an idiot causing harm to others then yes you will probably bring on some grievances that you must be held accountable. Does this give one the right to travel at 100 and something MPH down the roadway weaving in and out cutting people off doing damage to their vehicle or causing harm to others? No it does not. But like anything in life, here in America we are free men to come and go as we see fit as long as we are not harming or infringing upon another. No one controls another

            or can be told what he can and can not do on his property so long as its not infringing on another. Common sense goes a long way. The only Authoritative body is Christ Himself. Not flawed imperfect men sitting at a table legislating because a certain group of people want to play God restricting society. The only way the Constitution can be altered is by Amendments, and that's pretty difficult to do. And for GOOD REASON Licensing and registration are only validated when you consent by receiving them. PERIOD The police and the municipal courts have no recourse unless that license exists. They have no jurisdiction upon you, unless that license exists. But one must not remain silent throwing citation in the trash. You must handle it by way of affidavit or if ones foolish enough to step into their courts. But it must be answered and one must be educated enough to know how to answer. Period

          • pseudolaw.com

            Tell it to the judge, then come back with something in the public record. Individuals, like yourself, are not qualified and don't have the power to write or interpret the law. What do you think Article 1 and 3 of the federal Constitution, and the legislative and judicial sections of State constitutions, are for? You're wasting your time repeating nonsense here. Your personal opinion is irrelevant. Go get a declaratory judgment or at least a meaningful citation and come back.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            That's superstition, not law. The law is very clear, even with those who have recited magic spells in court or submitted their enchanted parchments. You're left alone because it's not worth listening to you lecture the court and file endless motions over a trivial violation. Good for you, if that's how you want to live your life, but your imagined invincibility is purely at the pleasure of the courts that would rather let you drive without a license than talk to you.

          • pseudolaw.com

            These cases do exist for false arrest

            Cite some.

          • pseudolaw.com

            Banned for being an ad-hominem douchebag and talking about IDPs and foreign countries that have no relation to the topic of the article after being warned to stop.

          • pseudolaw.com

            If true, it sounds like they failed to uphold local law. Spain is an internationally-recognized sovereign state and can require whatever it wants.

          • Thumbtack Mike

            you misread the comment, try again

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            then how do you explain the international driving privilege? anyone
            can go anywhere and drive without proof of test or licensing. according
            to the convention, this includes "drivers coming from countries that do
            not require a domestic pernit".

            This is completely false. An IDP is worthless without your domestic pernit. Read carefully — even if your home country doesn't require a driver's license, you can't get a valid IDP without proof of competence, and no country is under any obligation to recognize an IDP that doesn't conform to the requirements to demonstrate identity and competence.

          • Thumbtack Mike

            you be careful and mind your own business. All IDPs are the same format and none of them demonstrate anything but a languge translation. Dont tell me what I need. There is no such thing as a "home country". Everyone has equal rights in due process, there is only one consistent standard, not "if this" and "if that". If a no record found is good enough for you its good enough for me and an IDP is not a record or substitute for any license. No foreign state will authorize an act in another

            and not in California just as example

            12503. A nonresident over the age of 18 years whose home state or
            country does not require the licensing of drivers may operate a foreign vehicle owned by him for not to exceed 30 days without
            obtaining a license under this code.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            They are not, actually. Have a look at the actual IDP Convention.

          • Thumbtack Mike

            I did many times and there is one format. At the appendix not even a dob is required, just an "age at issue".

          • Tracy Chastain

            Because they have no contract to the state..no ssn…no dl..no registration…no contract

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            No contract is necessary for the enforcement of laws, including statutes. This concept is laughably absurd and has never had any validity at any time since the development of agriculture.

          • Damon Schneider

            Not having a license (Contract) is the only way to keep you out of a municipal court. A license of any kind converts ones inalienable rights protected by the Constitution over to the government. I simply send citation back to the court with an affidavit. Case closed. If I was wrong in what I do, hmmmm I suppose there would be warrants of some kind. FYI, there are none. The correction to the problem of government usurping the rights of Citizens and States is for all Citizens to realize that the Federal government was never intended to have jurisdiction over or influence upon individual Citizens. Its purposes are to serve the States as
            enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, clauses 1-18 of the Constitution for the united States. We all need to realize that governments of all stripes will grab hold of as much power as they can by whatever means they can and that includes the Leviathan in Washington, D.C. We need
            to realize that the government in Washington is actually two governments in one: First, it is the Federal government of the States united, bound by the yoke and limitations of the Constitution and, second, it is the municipal government for the District of Columbia and all possessions and territories of the United States such as Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and US military installations, etc. where such constitutional restrictions do not apply and where the municipal government has the legislative authority to do as it pleases (Article 1,Section 8, clause 17 US Constitution). We need to realize that the majority of legislators are lawyers practiced in the art of word-smithing (saying one thing while deliberately meaning or implying another). We need to realize that the majority or laws passed in Washington are municipal laws and do not apply to the Citizens of the States united. We need to realize that the majority of the laws passed in Washington are written in such a way as to deceive us Citizens into believing that they do apply to us. We need to realize that such deceptive laws use customized language – words which mimic words we use every day but words which, within the law, have very different meanings from the commonly understood meaning. For example, the Title that establishes the Department of Education (for the United States) has
            within it a section called "definitions". Within that section it says, when used in this Title, the term "United States" means Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. It does NOT mean the States united that we usually think of as the United States. Thus, we are deceived into believing that the Department of Education has some legal authority over our private sector schools and school systems when, in fact, they do not and can not except by our quiet acquiescence to the deception. It is by such deceptions that
            the power of the people and the States is eroded and usurped. It is by such deceptions that the Leviathan becomes ever larger and more intrusive.

            So, what is the real solution? For every piece of legislation passed into law ask the question "to whom does this legislation apply or pertain?" If it pertains to individual citizens
            then ask, "by what authority or provision enumerated in the Constitution do you enact this law?" Remember, the high court has declared that if a law is repugnant to the Constitution, it is not and cannot be a law imposed upon the Citizenry, it can only be municipal law which has no affect upon Citizens of the States united.“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 463

            “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had
            never been passed.” – Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425

            “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137
            You don't have to be a lawyer to figure this out or to correct the problem. You simply have to ask the right questions. And yes Actually, a law that is unconstitutional is enforceable. Congress has every right to pass whatever law they like when they are legislating "municipal law". The power to to exercise exclusive legislative authority is granted in the penultimate clause of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. It is the second mandate of the government in Washington, D.C. Such municipal law applies only to the capitol, its possessions and
            territories like Guam and Puerto Rico, and areas ceded to it by the States for military installations, ports, federal buildings, national parks and the like. Now, ask yourself, is obama-care municipal law or federal (pertaining to the States united under the Constitution) law? When congress legislates in its federal capacity, it must adhere to and be bound by the chains of the Constitution and laws so enacted are enforceable upon all Citizens of the States united under the Constitution. When congress legislates in its municipal capacity the
            Constitution does not come into play because such legislation does not
            pertain to the Citizens of the States united. Such legislation is enforceable upon citizens,residents, workers and those domiciled in the District of Columbia, the insular possessions and territories and areas ceded to the federal government. Now, ask yourself, does obama-care pertain to me? In fact, you should always ask and all legislation should clearly state whether it is municipal law or federal law. The difference is huge.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            That's 50 pounds of horseshit in a five pound bag.

          • Damon Schneider

            Says you, Ive proved otherwise. Would not have expected any other response from one holding onto a lie. A lazy uneducated society equals a slaved society. http://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-necessary-to-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/ http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/how-to-drive-without-a-license/

            I agree with Wesley Pieters who Says "One
            of the fundamental maxims of law is "He who slumbers on his rights, has
            none." The problem is, MOST average people have made no effort to
            comprehend "the law," especially with regard to political and legal
            jurisdiction. It is clear to me that state governments, which are
            municipal corporations incorporated under the laws of the United States,
            do not have the right to convert my rights into a privilege and charge a
            fee for the use of said "privilege." However, since most people,
            including those who choose careers in "law enforcement" blindly believe
            whatever their "superiors" tell them, without researching for themselves
            what is true, we have a system of government that derives its "just
            Powers from the Consent of the Governed," to extract huge profits from
            those consenting governed people. One reason that you cant go to court
            with a print out of all the above quotes from other cases and expect to
            "win" is that, you are going to court, voluntarily consenting to the
            jurisdiction of the court, and voluntarily accepting the judgment of the
            court which is made up of people who are on the payroll of the
            plaintiff. Say, for example, one is traveling on the land of
            Pennsylvania, and gets pulled over by a local small town municipal cop
            for a "code violation." The code one is accused of violating is
            basically one of the corporate by-laws of the legal entity known as
            COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA. The thing is, unless one has a contract
            with COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA or THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, THE STATE
            OF CALIFORNIA, or THE STATE OF [any other state incorporated under the
            laws of the UNITED STATES], one has no liability to abide by the by-laws
            of that corporation. However, as many of us have learned first hand,
            you can't win in THEIR courts with respect to THEIR LAWS. The other
            reason you cant expect to win is because you cant win as a DEFENDANT!
            So, the appropriate way to solve this problem is to make a claim against
            the offending party….the man who thinks his job gives him the right
            to arrest you [a traffic stop is an arrest as soon as you are pulled
            over] just because you don't buy into the same licensing and
            registration scam that he did. But you cant do that if you don't know
            that your rights have been violated. Until people make an effort to know
            their own rights and protect their own rights in a court of proper
            jurisdiction, they will just keep getting used as an easy source of
            income for the shareholders of the various corporations that make up
            "THE STATE OF." As for the people who are of the opinion that its right
            that everyone who travels in an automobile should be licensed because
            it "deters criminals" or somehow makes them safer, the fact is,
            criminals don't care about laws anyway. Just as gun control laws don't
            keep guns out of the hands of criminals, driver licensing doesn't make
            people good drivers. In fact, the driver licensing/mandatory insurance
            scheme only serves to oppress the poor and keep more people perpetually
            in need of public assistance because they don't have enough money to pay
            the state mob its "protection fee" to protect from police harassment
            and so they therefore are unable to secure employment they would
            otherwise be able to secure if they could travel freely without fear of
            being kidnapped and having their property taken." AGAIN Ken, a simple affidavit with the returned citation to correct administrative law, show jurisdiction, and to show what their grievance is equals case dropped. I know it to be true for I have done it 1st hand many of times. I do not have a License, that is the only way. If one has a license you cant do what I do because you have consented to convert your rights and gave them permission. PERIOD Rid your license letting them expire, do not renew the contract. I do not need you to believe me. Trust in your own horse shit and carry on blindly but constant repudiation of your rhetoric does not make you right.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Try reading the article before pasting your tedious screeds.

          • Damon Schneider

            In pseudo-legal circles, "right to travel" means the supposed right
            to "travel freely in your private property / automobile / conveyance on
            the public roads / highways without a driver's license, insurance or
            registration and exempt from regulation or interruption provided one
            does not engage in commerce / earn profit or cause harm to people or
            property."

            Absolute freedom! Could it be true? How does the law work?

            Debunking sovereign citizens, freemen-on-the-land and other pseudo-legal theories.

            OHHHHH I believe I did, as I read through the comments you seemed to be struggling, I reached out from 1st hand experience to help you and you say horseshit. No argument, no one needs for you to accept it. Carry on in ignorance. You fit right in with the rest of indoctrinated ignorance. Perhaps out of fear? Doesn't matter. no more time wasted. Correcting the unconstitutional acts of government is hardly tedious but explains the character of whom one is simply conversing with. And society wonders why they are so suppressed.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            So what part of the law are you tripped up on?

          • Damon Schneider

            If you would have read the tedious post as you call it, you would have found there is no municipal law that I'm tripped on, but very much versed in the Constitution and have it right. How do I know I have it right? The municipal court allowed me to know by dropping any and every driving without a license citation that I have received with nothing other than 15 miniutes of my time and cost of a certified letter having never entered their court. But the author of this article portrays they are debunking such a notion. Laughable at best but really sad as those like me look around at the erosion of a Free society so many bled and died for. Ben Franklin once said when asked what did we receive. " A REPUBLIC IF YOU CAN KEEP IT"

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Wow, you're telling me that a court dropped small-money traffic violations with a vexatious defendant? Wow, that couldn't possibly be judicial discretion — clearly, a century of case law has been turned on its head!!

          • Damon Schneider

            Im telling you that you do not need a license to travel by an automobile privately and municipal laws do not apply to state citizens. The rest of your BS is your own confused rhetoric.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            What do municipal laws have to do with driver licensing or vehicle registration?

          • Damon Schneider

            Really? Surely you jest? Everything, for driver licensing and vehicle registration are just that. Municipal laws

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Licensing and registration laws are uniformly at the state level, not municipal.

          • Damon Schneider

            Wrong on not municipal. Yes and at many levels, Licensing and registration are still municipal laws. Municipal Law is the law specific to a particular city or county (known legally as a "municipality"),
            and the government bodies within those cities or counties. This can
            cover a wide range of issues, including everything from police power,
            zoning, education policies, and property taxes. Terms to Know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_law

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            If you name your state, I'll show you the state level licensing and registration laws that apply to you.

          • Damon Schneider

            Ken, not sure where you missed or had mentally blocked out where I explained that municipal laws do not apply to private natural state citizens, you will not even find one in my state. Not sure where you missed the fact that I do not have a license to travel by automobile and have been ticketed 3 different times in 3 different county's all with the same result. Not sure where you missed that the Supreme Court ruled NO LICENSE TO TRAVEL NEEDED. Thats right, must of been tedious screeds of horse shit. I have friends who are officers of the law who have research and checked me for warrants. NONE been over 6 years. Nobody needs to take for my word, simply write your state legislators and ask them where in your state Constitution or where in your Federal Constitution does it give your county, city, state the authority to enforce municipal laws on a private natural born citizen whom never licensed and still travels. See what answer you get. You or the audience may also ask them to show you where your responsible for any federal tax. I dont pay the federal tax either and been doing sop since 2006, you must file. Biggest scam ever perpetrated on a free American society. Do not live in the federal territories federal UNITED STATES such as Guam Puerto Rico Guatemala District of Columbia or work for federal receiving any federal funds, money, or special privileged. You dont owe the tax. losthorizons.com Hope this helps somebody out there. The delusional s holding onto government commercial municipal laws obviously already have it figured out and unwilling to admit they dont obviously know everything. Good Luck stay in the confines of the Constitution USING the Constitution and asking questions, researching before acting will set you free. Never know everything be willing to learn, Educate and be Free as intended by our Founders. Again good luck. Never take ones word for it, know it exclusively yourself but Ken you are wrong in your research

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Again, state laws are not municipal laws, and municipal laws do indeed apply to people within the applicable municipalities.

          • Damon Schneider

            WRONG, State laws are indeed MUNICIPAL LAWS!!!!! If its not in the State Federal Constitution then they are MUNICIPAL and they do indeed not APPLY to State Citizens UNLESS you gave them the authority by way of License or wish to be subject to the confines of Federal jurisdiction and their authority. Supreme Court has declared that if a law is repugnant to the Constitution, it is not and cannot be a law imposed upon the Citizenry, it can only be municipal
            law which has no affect upon Citizens of the States united.

            “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
            rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v.
            Arizona, 384 U.S. 463

            “An unconstitutional act is not law; it
            confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it
            creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as
            though it had never been passed.” – Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S.
            425

            “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law
            of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and
            void of law.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            What is a "State Federal Constitution?" There is one federal constitution and fifty state constitutions. The states are not incorporated on the authority of the United States federal government, but are sovereign in their own right. Each state constitution establishes a legislature with the authority to make laws for the entire state. These are not "municipal" laws. The states are not provinces or municipalities incorporated on external authority, but are sovereign, independent states in their own right and on their own authority.

          • Damon Schneider

            There is no State Federal Constitution LOL my bad thinking you would know what I meant without the ,,,, They are separate as you just mentioned and what I was implying. Yes 50 separate State Constitutions and 1 Federal Constitution to be clear. whatever any law legislated beyond that Constitution is and ALWAYS WILL BE MUNICIPAL!!!!!!!! Google MUNICIPAL!!! I already did this for you and presented the meaning. MUNICIPAL is

            Municipal Law is the law specific to a particular city or county (known legally as a "municipality"),
            and the government bodies within those cities or counties. This can
            cover a wide range of issues, including everything from police power,
            zoning, education policies, and property taxes. What police powering, zoning do you not understand? Traffic laws are MUNICIPAL!!!!! Licensing is MUNICIPAL!!!!! Ordinances are MUNICIPAL!!!! Legislators will not pass a law violating that Constitution but will write in such a way to trick you into believing it applies to you. You know I already posted this once for you. You ignored it as horse shit but in fact is the way it is. So here for you ONE LAST TIME::::

            Correcting The Unconstitutional Acts Of Government.

            The
            correction to the problem of government usurping the rights of Citizens
            and States is for all Citizens to realize that the Federal government
            was never intended to have jurisdiction over or influence upon
            individual Citizens. Its purposes are to serve the States as enumerated
            in Article 1, Section 8, clauses 1-18 of the Constitution for the
            united States.

            We all need to realize that governments of all
            stripes will grab hold of as much power as they can by whatever means
            they can and that includes the Leviathan in Washington, D.C.

            We
            need to realize that the government in Washington is actually two
            governments in one: First, it is the Federal government of the States
            united, bound by the yoke and limitations of the Constitution and,
            second, it is the municipal government for the District of Columbia and
            all possessions and territories of the United States such as Puerto
            Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and US military installations,
            etc. where such constitutional restrictions do not apply and where the
            municipal government has the legislative authority to do as it pleases
            (Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 US Constitution).

            We need to
            realize that the majority of legislators are lawyers practiced in the
            art of word-smithing (saying one thing while deliberately meaning or
            implying another).

            We need to realize that the majority or laws
            passed in Washington are municipal laws and do not apply to the Citizens
            of the States united.

            We need to realize that the majority of
            the laws passed in Washington are written in such a way as to deceive us
            Citizens into believing that they do apply to us.

            We need to
            realize that such deceptive laws use customized language – words which
            mimic words we use every day but words which, within the law, have very
            different meanings from the commonly understood meaning. For example,
            the Title that establishes the Department of Education (for the United
            States) has within it a section called "definitions". Within that
            section it says, when used in this Title, the term "United States" means
            Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.
            It does NOT mean the States united that we usually think of as the
            United States. Thus, we are deceived into believing that the Department
            of Education has some legal authority over our private sector schools
            and school systems when, in fact, they do not and can not except by our
            quiet acquiescence to the deception. It is by such deceptions that the
            power of the people and the States is eroded and usurped. It is by such
            deceptions that the Leviathan becomes ever larger and more intrusive.

            So, what is the real solution? For every piece of legislation passed
            into law ask the question "to whom does this legislation apply or
            pertain?" If it pertains to individual citizens then ask, "by what
            authority or provision enumerated in the Constitution do you enact this
            law?"

            Remember, the high court has declared that if a law is
            repugnant to the Constitution, it is not and cannot be a law imposed
            upon the Citizenry, it can only be municipal law which has no affect
            upon Citizens of the States united.

            “Where rights secured by the
            Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation
            which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 463

            “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no
            duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal
            contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” –
            Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425

            “The Constitution of these
            United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant
            to the Constitution is null and void of law.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5
            U.S. 137

            You don't have to be a lawyer to figure this out or to correct the problem. You simply have to ask the right questions.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            You still haven't explained:

            1. How state laws, made by legislatures specifically empowered by state constitutions, are municipal, when they are not specific to a city or county

            2. When the Supreme Court ruled against the validity of licensing and registration laws as a condition of operating a motor vehicle

            3. What makes municipal laws invalid when they are given force by constitutionally-established legislatures

          • common sense

            Actually NO… only if you are using the airplane, motor vehicle, motor cycle, bicycle etc to "transport passengers or property over the highways for compensation"… that "Activity" is regulated not "Traveling"..

          • pseudolaw.com

            If you read the article, sources, vehicle laws created by the state legislature created by the state constitution and judgments of the state courts, you will find this isn't true in any state. Anyone using the public highways can be regulated for public safety, whether operating "for profit" or not. There has never been a commercial requirement for regulation by federal, state, county or municipal legislatures. You can try arguing otherwise, but the courts, military, police and bylaw officers support the legislation, unless you successfully defend or appeal and get it struck down.

          • juanjo54

            Let me know when you recover from the lobotomy.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            The fact [is?] that people were travaling freely without any more type or proof of idenity that their bible.

            When? How?

            As you know as a worker in the corporation known as the united stares All codes and sections and clauses in the system.Are not there to protect the products of the US ( tht would be a so called citizen) they are there to make money for the never full always wanting more Fat Cats who run the world And you can interpet this statement anyway you want .But all codes and sublaws made after the constitution are all about money.And to make it even more funny THERE IS NO MONEY EVERYTHING IS A PROMISDSRY NOTE

            Yaaawwwn. First, you need to learn to spell and not leave words out. I don't know of any corporation called the united stares. Second, if you meant the United States, I wonder what you mean by "corporation," and if you've fallen for laughable kook theories about 28 USC 3002 or listings from credit agencies. Third, there are plenty of laws under the Constitution that don't help anybody make money. More than that, there are plenty of laws that prevent businesses from making money! You're just spewing out barely-coherent Alex Jones crap like an upended lawn sprinkler of delusions.

          • Crystal

            For those who seem to be caught off balance by the unveiling of truth, the best way I can break it down is as follows:
            God created man from the dust of the earth and with the breathe of God man became a living soul, both male and female made He them. Man lived by the laws of the land, God's laws; Man created the constitution; the constitution created the government which adheres to the boundaries set within the constitution; the government has jurisdiction over all civil matters. This would include all fictitious entities. In the status of person, you have policies & procedures, and you are alloyed privleges. In the status of a people you have God given, inalienable rights, and make declarations and decrees.
            How can the thing created ever be greater than its creator? Human being are beneath God and God gave us dominion over all which was created beneath us. We cannot take the breathe of God but He can assuredly reclaim His from us. Individually and collectively. And it's not that we don't have rights, it's that we have been tricked into an alternate reality and we believed the lies. There is a deeper meaning to the saying "know thyself".

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Why should I give a hoot about your god? I don't look to your god for state transportation laws, nor do I look to Quetzalcoatl or Apollo. Neither do American legislatures, agencies, or courts.

          • Thumbtack Mike

            because they do all follow the same order, which she neatly laid out for your ignorance. you can scoff a you like, but this country was founded on judeo christian precepts, not qutzacoatl or atheist know nothings who think life started in 8th grade social studies class.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            That's nice, but fortunately the founders of the United States had the foresight to insulate government from the depravity of the clergy and prevent it from being used as a puppet for the priests. This means that the Bible does not form binding precedent and the Gospels don't carry superior weight to the federal and state constitutions. Are individual legislators and judges influenced by their religious and philosophical beliefs? Sure, but constitutional guarantees strictly limit the influence of religion in law.

          • Thumbtack Mike

            thats funny last time i checked all oaths to uphold these constitutions were taken ON THE BIBLE

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Except that they're not. Did you know one U.S. President declined to swear an oath altogether, let alone on the Bible?

          • Thumbtack Mike

            can you name him, rather than asking me?

            Did you know ALL of the others did ALWAYS thousands of times over centuries now?

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            It was Franklin Pierce. He chose to affirm rather than swear an oath. Everybody has this right, and quite a few people use it. Elected officials are not required to use the Bible, witnesses in court may use the Quran, and judges can simply affirm their pledge to uphold the law. Not only is this allowed, but it is guaranteed, because Christianity does not have any special privilege under the law, nor does any other religion.

          • pseudolaw.com

            The protestant KJV bible is an important part of the nation's history, and part of the nation, yes, but it isn't a source of law as far as federal or state constitutions, legislation or common law is concerned, except as it may non-bindingly influence the legislature to create statutes or judges to create common law.

          • Thumbtack Mike

            that provably false. The Bible is the basis for english common law, by any traditional commentary.

          • pseudolaw.com

            No US court says the bible is binding law. Try the UK where Protestantism is the official state religion and the head of state swears to uphold the "Laws of God."

          • Thumbtack Mike

            at any time before photos and IDs, when else?

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Well, today we like higher standards of identification for certain methods of travel.

          • Thumbtack Mike

            the international driver permit is a minimal, private, civil standard, like driving is supposed to be. the only positive identification requirement found in any vehicle code outside their own subjects is to "write your name in the presence of the requesting officer".

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            OK, so now you just have to move somewhere where you can get an IDP without holding a conventional driver's license. I reject the idea that people should get to fling two tons of steel around at high speeds with a scrawled "X" as their identification. Screw that.

          • Thumbtack Mike

            yawn. nobody cares what you "reject". it is what it is, and not what it isn't.

          • pseudolaw.com

            Yeah, it is off-topic. Don't post about the IDP again.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            On the contrary — legislatures care quite a bit about majority opinions. Unless you can drum up some more support for your loony falsehoods, it is you whose opinions are disregarded by legislatures, police, and courts.

          • pseudolaw.com

            If you don't get back to the topic of the right to travel in the US you're going to get hit with the ban hammer.

          • Tracy Chastain

            Ok folks…lets have class. Money..its a tool that allow commerce. When you buy a car and title it..it is now under to clouds. First, money is a tool that you agree to use for an agreement. That agreement declares that the Treasury Dept now is the collateral holder of your property. You can possess car drive car sell car but it is not really yours. The title gives you those rights. The title declares that it is property deemed as a vehicle. We all know what fed vehicle code defines a vehicle as. You have to kill this commerce purchase with money of your automobile first. 2nd no title. Recieve title at property transfer "not sell"declaring recieved as property not vehicle. 3rd if you have active registration on your newly obtained property..it must be expired or unregistered. 4th…the drivers license.. rescending a dL legally….???? Affidavit of fact etc. Expired??? Thats another trail. Good luck and I welcome comments. Remember Jesus threw a fit when moneychangers were at the temple. The reason was because the money required made it requiring a tax and put the church offering into a tax criteria and also made the offering the King's property as the collateral holder the same way our treasury dept does us everytime we use that dollar for commerce!!!!

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Any evidence for any of that wacky crap?

          • Not A. Slave

            Includes means the two choices which are present and those are the two types of license. You obtain class D CDL ( commercial drivers license) or greater depending on what type of "occupation" you are engaged. There is no personal auto license. Troll

          • juanjo54

            More dribble out of the mouths of the "foam at the mouth, occupy a bird refuge" nut case brigade. Section 521 sets out the classifications of licenses including those which are Class A which are and this is important "slavish nut" – NOT COMMERCIAL operators of vehicles.

          • Nathan Bowen

            not once in all the above comments did anyone reference this law which defines allot of the wording states like to change for their benefit. U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 2 › § 31 so this would seem to change things a little and make the wording of some state laws Invalid! ?? yes / no??

          • pseudolaw.com
          • Nathan Bowen

            Per your advice i re-read what you posted and found this>>> States are free to enact whatever traffic regulations they want provided they do not violate federal law, as determined by the federal courts.<<<<
            So federal says this: (6)Motor vehicle.—
            The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.

            So federal law clearly defines it as "for Commercial purpose" yet States say all vehicles commercial or not!
            So this seems to be against, or in contrary to federal law.

            Unless I'm reading this wrong????

          • pseudolaw.com

            Completely wrong. Read it again…

          • pseudolaw.com

            "Includes" can be inclusive or exclusive, depending on the legislative intent. Typically it is inclusive.

            "Commercial" in "Commercial Driver's License" usually refers to the size and weight of the vehicle. Naturally, with larger, heavier vehicles special training is required so you don't end up crushing cars and killing people. Can you find one state licensing code that says "Commercial Driver's License" refers to commercial vs. non-commercial use of the highways? I don't think you can.

          • Thumbtack Mike

            all of them. the key is "transportation activity".

            transportation is a subset of "Commerce". Illinois Vehicle Code definitions look it up

            whats happening is a conflict between the obvious fact that either i am verifiably licensed or i am not. yet anyone from around the world can drive legally pretty much anywhere regardless of citizenship. I go to Germany they cannot check my license from Japan you come from Albania they cannot check your license in Nebraska.

            Sometimes "no record found" is a good thing and other times its presumed to be incriminating. But just looking at a card by the roadside is not verification, only a display and inspection.

          • pseudolaw.com

            In the Illinois Vehicle Code find the following definitions and use them with the law below and you should see that you need a driver's license, plate, insurance, etc. to legally operate any self-propelled vehicle on the public roads whether acting "for hire" or not:

            Sec. 1-115.8. Drive. To drive, operate, or be in physical control of a motor vehicle.

            Sec. 1-116. Driver. Every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.

            Sec. 1-116.1. Driver's license. Any license to operate a motor vehicle issued under the laws of this State.

            Sec. 1-126. Highway. The entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel or located on public school property.

            Sec. 1-146. Motor vehicle. Every vehicle which is self-propelled and every vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails, except for vehicles moved solely by human power, motorized wheelchairs, low-speed electric bicycles, and low-speed gas bicycles.

            Sec. 1-217. Vehicle. Every device, in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway … except devices moved by human power, devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks and snowmobiles …

            Driver's license requirement: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K6-101

            Insurance requirement: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K7-601

            Plate requirement: http://ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/062500050K3-701.htm

          • Thumbtack Mike

            go deeper:

            (625 ILCS 5/1-111.4)
            Sec. 1-111.4. Commerce. Trade, commerce, or !transportation.
            (Source: P.A. 90-89, eff. 1-1-98.)

            (625 ILCS 5/1-209.5)
            Sec. 1-209.5. Transportation. The actual movement of property or passengers by motor vehicle, together with loading, unloading, and any other accessorial or ancillary service provided by the !carrier! in connection with movement by motor vehicle.
            (Source: P.A. 90-. 89, eff. 1-1-98.)

            the word "vehicle" is defined by "transportation". its the dept of transportation who issues the licenses!

          • pseudolaw.com

            What does that have to do with the license, registration and insurance requirements? The word "commerce" isn't used in any of them. And "transportation" isn't used in the definition of "vehicle" as you claim. Nice try, though.

          • Thumbtack Mike

            it is too- a vehicle is "any device that is or may be used to transport or draw"…

            after all its the dept of transportation who issues the licenses anyway! they must know what theyre doing

            it was in your own cite:
            Sec. 1-217. Vehicle. Every device, in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway …

          • pseudolaw.com

            "transported" is not equal to "transportation". In law, such specificity matters a lot.

          • Thumbtack Mike

            the dept of TRANSPORTATION is where you get the license. what are they regulating then, if not something defined in that code?

            transport is necessarily part of transportation. "Is", or "May". May means "allowed" not "might".

            any scheme of licensure must indicate an activity. except for the odd misnomer, license conotes business, usage, profit. Its all supply side regulation, misconstrued as demand side. These laws are supposed to protect thr consumer and the public, not interfere with them.

          • pseudolaw.com

            It says "transported", not "transport". "transported" is not part of "transportation", and words are not defined by obscure applications of the name of the agency. Since "transported" isn't specifically defined, the state court decides. Why don't you try it out next time you get a speeding ticket and thereby gain standing to raise the issue. When it works on the record please come back and post the PDF of the judge's order. You could get your ticket thrown out, and force the legislature to amend the code to cover your clever ass. 🙂

          • Thumbtack Mike

            every time anyone is stopped and let go without a charge on "no driver license found" whether in America or abroad your butt hurts. That's a lot of pain considering just tourists alone. The international driving privilege is a quantified example of the common law right, modernized as a general or "statutory" privilege, distinct from the administrative permission gained only by application. All drivers international do so without a recognized or verifiae license, period. I dont care if youve got a face scan passport and entry visa from the ICE when any policeman runs that info through their system it WILL come back "no record found"- no license. Sometimes thats cool and sometimes its not?? Hows that? Its got nothing to do with State laws which are all just fine. It has to do with uniform application of those laws as guaranteed by the 14th amendment.

            The real problem is a Monell claim against the massive failure to train law enforcement officers. Combined with, long standing selective prosecution practice. What did you think court was? Its just a bunch of people talking. If you can push your way, you win. Which cuts in two directions at least.

            What do you think a 'case dismissed' look like? what has that got to do with moving violations? the subject here is license & registration. All travelers on the road are subject to the same rules so far as these apply.

            Obviously if I can drive legally on what amounts to nothing so can you. quit cryin

          • pseudolaw.com

            Cases are dismissed at the discretion of the prosecutor or judge for various reasons. This doesn't prove a right, just that the court chose not to spend exorbitant amounts of taxpayer time and money on minor civil disobedience. If you had an actual right you could win damages for false arrest when you're detained or arrested for operating a vehicle on the public roads without a license. Let me know when that happens.

          • The_Sage_Mage_of_Rage_Uncaged

            The "court" is not a court, but, a military tribunal, run by the Vatican, no less. Fraudulent fraudulent fraudulent…

          • The_Sage_Mage_of_Rage_Uncaged

            The right to travel, may NOT be converted into a privilege granted by the state. U should know that. Your karma, is particularly nasty, and, it is about to be unleashed all right upon your head. I wouldn't want to be you, anytime soon. You know, everything righteous and good, hates liars…?

          • http://cecillrussellforpresident.blogspot.com/ Cecil Lee Russell

            What does that have to do with license, registration and mandatory insurance? Everything. First and foremost-
            Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape
            liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware
            of its content.‘ It is a longstanding principle that, absent a clear expression of contrary congressional intent, "ignorance of the law is no defense,"
            United States v. International Minerals & Chem. Co., 402 U.S. 558, 563 (1971)
            Jerman v Carlisle; No. 08-1200, 2009

            “Ignorance of a statute is generally no defense even to a criminal prosecution, and it is never a defense in a civil case, no matter how recent, obscure, or opaque the statute.” Torres v. INS, 144 F.3d 472, 474 (7th Cir. 1998)

            Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). "The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation."
            So NO MATTER WHAT THE STATE DEFINES IN ITS TRANSPORTATION CODES-NO state can include those who are not operating in a commercial capacity. The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution clearly states that state laws, statutes, regulations, ordinances or any other thing purporting to be official is exempted and render null and void if it is in opposition to a Federal laws, Constitutional Right or Federal Court Decision.
            >>No State has the legal authority to legislate or implement a mandatory drivers license for non-commercial operation of a personal automobile or vehicle.<>>>>"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."<<<<<
            Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”
            City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.”

            Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”

            Moreover,
            1: Traffic infractions are not crimes.
            2: drivers license laws, not involving a commercial activity can be ignored with impunity.
            Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. "Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right."
            "Traffic infractions are not a crime." People v. Battle

            Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 "The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."

            "The right of a 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 a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty 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." Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135

            "The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784

            "… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right" -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”

            Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “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. . .”

            Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”

            Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”

            Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”

            Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. "The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts." People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”

            House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.

            Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”

            Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;

            Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 "The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways."

            -American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions:
            "(6) Motor vehicle. – The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…"
            10) The term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. "A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received."

            -International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’"

            -City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 "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 "

            The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of."

            Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). "…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…" State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;

            Every police officer who writes a ticket for 'driving without a license' when the alleged offender is not operating a commercial motor vehicle COMMITS TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES-the penalty for such can be assessed at death by lethal injection. Every tow truck driver who impounds a persons private vehicle CAN BE FOUND GUILTY OF ACCESSORY.

            Because Ignorance of existing controlling federal court decisions is not an excuse.

          • The_Sage_Mage_of_Rage_Uncaged

            No, driving is a commercial activity, the same exact activity without compensation, or payment is called 'travelling', and is NOT regulated by the state.

          • The_Sage_Mage_of_Rage_Uncaged

            If you have trouble with grasping this, then your education failed from day one, and, your diploma is utterly worthless…

            ":

            V C Section 260 Commercial Vehicle

            Commercial Vehicle

            260. (a) A "commercial vehicle" is a motor vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property.

            (b) Passenger vehicles and house cars that are not used for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit are not commercial vehicles. This subdivision shall not apply to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 6700) of Division 3.

            (c) Any vanpool vehicle is not a commercial vehicle.

            (d) The definition of a commercial vehicle in this section does not apply to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 15200) of Division 6.

            Not for HIRE, you are a TRAVELLER, and the state can go ____ itself. Period. You damn liar pseudolaw!!!

          • Cpt Obvious

            What I find funny is he keeps saying motor vehicle, defines it and still don't get it. Look at title 18 of the us code. section 31. Sorry but states can't define that which has been defined.

          • pseudolaw.com

            "motor vehicle" is defined numerous times throughout the USC. These definitions only apply to federal charges brought under specific sections of the USC. You can find the scope at the top, e.g. "In this chapter…" The definitions used in a state court on a state vehicle code charge can be found at the top of the state vehicle code title or chapter. If you look at every state's code, particularly the driver's license and financial responsibility chapters and sections, you will find the term "motor vehicle" applies to all self-propelled vehicles using the public roads whether performing commercial activity or not. State courts cannot ignore definitions handed down by the state legislature on a state charge. Sorry, but the internet lied.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Sorry but states can't define that which has been defined.

            Says who? US Code definitions are as binding on the states as definitions from Australia or the United Nations.

          • The_Sage_Mage_of_Rage_Uncaged

            NOT! Include, does NOT mean exclude. You are beyond dishonest, you are simply of evil intent. Your karma, shall, not must, SHALL, as in, it WILL be exquisite, and, either seven, ten, or one hundred fold, as it all comes back to destroy you. Karma, is what you reap, as your bad intentions sowed. The only force or energy stronger than the great balancer, Karma, is, LOVE! YOU SHOULD PROBABLY DO A GOOGLE SEARCH TO FIND OUT WHAT THAT WORD LOVE MEANS. It is glaringly apparent, you haven't the slightest notion what love is. It is not about lying and deceiving others.

          • billdberger

            Yep, CVC Section 260 does exactly that for registration
            Logically then, most of the CVC's are referring to vehicles used in commerce and those that are not!
            The definition of Motor Vehicle as in the Dept. of, means "commercial"
            According to the CVC most travelers aren't required to have licencing or registration. Being prudent keeps me insured, not a statute.
            That's what I read in my 2015 CVC! You should read it so you'll know next time
            All law is commercial since 1933. Tell the judge this right away at your arraignment and you'll have no objections defending your case using the common law, the superior law in all California courts!

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            It would be better if non-commercial licenses were specifically listed in 521.001(3), but Chapter 521 doesn't make much sense unless you accept that noncommercial driver's licenses are assumed to be the standard, and (3)(A) and (3)(B) merely specify that those two types of licenses are to be considered equivalent to a standard noncommercial driver's license.

            521.021, 521.025, and the entirety of Chapter 522 (titled COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSES) don't make much sense otherwise.

          • pseudolaw.com

            If you actually read the state codes you will find that Commercial Driver's Licenses often have nothing to do with anyone's occupation, but the size and weight of the vehicle. With larger, heavier, commercially-sized vehicles, different training is needed so you don't lose control and kill a bunch of people.

            See California for example:

            There are 3 different CDL classifications that distinguish the type of vehicle you are allowed to operate. They are:
            – Class A: Required to operate any gross combination of vehicles weighing at least 26,001 lbs. that includes a towed vehicle of over 10,000 lbs.
            – Class B: Required to operate any single vehicle weighing 26,001 lbs. or more, OR this type of vehicle also towing another with a GVWR of up to 10,000 lbs.
            – Class C: Required to operate any commercial vehicle not defined by class A or B definitions, AND EITHER carries at least 16 passengers OR transports hazardous materials. (source)

            Each CDL classification is distinguished by the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) among other items. (source)

          • billdberger

            My 5600 lb Dodge RAM 1500 got a "commercial" registration from the lovable Nazi's at the Calif. DMV!

            What you say is, is not always the case my friend!

            Realize, you are dealing with organized crime here and take the necessary precautions to protect yourself!

          • pseudolaw.com

            Yes, most states have "commercial licenses" for vehicles that are a certain size and weight. This is because certain skills are needed to operate a heavy machine without killing people. State CDLs usually have nothing to do with whether you use the highways for profit or not. Read the law and you'll know.

          • billdberger

            The CVC section 260 reads what commercial vehicles are and which are required to be registered and which vehicles are not required to be registered!
            Looks like it is you that should read the law before telling us what it says!

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Unfortunately, California considers pickup trucks (as defined in CA Veh Code § 471) to be "designed primarily for the transportation of property," regardless of whether they're used commercially or not.

          • billdberger

            It also defines my truck weight class as non commercial
            The the DMV sends a registration designating it as "commercial" violating their own VC!
            Apparently as a San Jose CA judge once told me, they just make up what they want, you have to go ask them." Which of course I did not and walked out a free man with my money intact!

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Where does it define your truck's weight class as non-commercial?

          • billdberger

            The CVC defines it. Their definition of commercial does not include my trucks weight class
            hence, my truck is not commercial being under the minimum weight designated to be classed as commercial!

          • pseudolaw.com

            In state vehicle codes, "commercial" is almost always used to describe a classification of vehicles based on size and weight to ensure that people are properly trained so they don't kill people when they drive them… and has nothing to do with the totally unfounded sovereign theory that the government can only regulate commercial activity.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Where do you see a minimum weight limit? Looks like they've defined pickup trucks as motor vehicles primary designed for the transportation of property, as described in CVC 260.

          • billdberger

            Drivers licenses defines the weight limit for vehicle commercial registration
            Registration codes define them as well. Don't remember their numbers.
            Section 260 just defines any vehicle used in commerce as one "Required" to be registered,
            any vehicle used on the roads in not in commerce are NOT required to be registered.
            My truck weight comes in under their minimum weight limit to be considered commercial
            so that means the DMV registration is incorrect. They violate their own rules, again!

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Read CVC 260 again or stop lying. If you lie about it again, I will ban you.

          • billdberger

            Why is that unfortunate?
            FYI, hauling ones personal property on the public roadways is not an act of being in commerce!

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            It's unfortunate because, presumably, pickup owners have to pay more to register them due to the wording and implementation of CVC 260, which considers pickup trucks "designed primarily for the transportation of property," which makes them "commercial vehicles" under the law.

          • billdberger

            Section 260 doesn't say that Ken. Stop making things up!

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            "(a) A “commercial vehicle” is a motor vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property."

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Here, I found some more for you:

            260.

            (a) A “commercial vehicle” is a motor vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property.

            (b) Passenger vehicles and house cars that are not used for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit are not commercial vehicles. This subdivision shall not apply to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 6700) of Division 3.

            (c) Any vanpool vehicle is not a commercial vehicle.

            (d) The definition of a commercial vehicle in this section does not apply to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 15200) of Division 6.

            415.

            (a) A “motor vehicle” is a vehicle that is self-propelled.

            (b) “Motor vehicle” does not include a self-propelled wheelchair, motorized tricycle, or motorized quadricycle, if operated by a person who, by reason of physical disability, is otherwise unable to move about as a pedestrian.

            (c) For purposes of Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 3000) of Division 2, “motor vehicle” includes a recreational vehicle as that term is defined in subdivision (a) of Section 18010 of the Health and Safety Code, but does not include a truck camper.

            670.

            A “vehicle” is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.

            360.

            “Highway” is a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Highway includes street.

            590.

            “Street” is a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Street includes highway.

            465.

            A “passenger vehicle” is any motor vehicle, other than a motortruck, truck tractor, or a bus, as defined in Section 233, and used or maintained for the transportation of persons. The term “passenger vehicle” shall include a housecar.

            410.

            A “motor truck” or “motortruck” is a motor vehicle designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property.

          • Stephen Despin

            You do realize a Texas judge just ruled it to be unconstitutional to require a driver's license​ or to have plates on your vehicle. Secondly it's not the states highways or roads because government cannot own property, thirdly when our tax dollars pay for those roads, highways, and the law enforcement that regulate them they are our roads and highways not the states. Government is nothing more than representatives of the people and governments limited through the Constitution. This country gives power to the people not power to the government making them nothing more than the voice of the people and making all public roads and highways ours not governments.

          • pseudolaw.com

            a Texas judge just ruled it to be unconstitutional to require a driver's license​ or to have plates on your vehicle

            Please cite the case directly so we can see it in context for ourselves. Highway regulation clearly falls under the state police power.

            The government holds everything in trust for the benefit of the people. The country gives power to the collective, not individual, will of the people. The US is a representative democracy based on popular sovereignty. Do you really think you can personally dictate how 320 million people's tax dollars are spent? No, the need and will of the majority rules.

          • Brian Dunn

            Constitutional republic and individual sovereignty.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            You're so many layers of wrong, it's amazing. No, no judge has ruled licensing and registration laws to be unconstitutional. Yes, governments can own property, because they exist in law. Where are you getting this loony garbage?

          • Pete

            Legislature
            does not restrict the right to travel when it sets conditions and restrictions
            on the operation of motor vehicles. Hendrick, 235 U.S at 624, 35 S.Ct. 140.”

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Good example of a state case, there! For the viewers at home, that's an excerpt from State v. Cason, a 2012 Maine Supreme Judicial Court case where a six-judge panel wrote a two-page decision affirming a conviction for violating registration laws, despite Mr. Cason's insistence that they violate his "right to travel."

            https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18433110020117983348

          • Florin

            All this legalese is garbage. The founders wrote the constitution in plain language so it could be understood and implemented in a practical way by every person. Cars did not exist then, and freedom of personal movement is so basic and implicit they thought not to enumerate it, although. Something might be in the articles of the confederation. I think the driving is a privelege jot a right bullshit is way too played out, its about govt control, harrassing and collecting. Lets amend the constitution to protect our freedom in common modern everyday modes of transportation withouthaving to get a permit or express permission from our government.

          • Florin

            If you sacrifice freedom for safety or security, in the end you will have neither.

          • pseudolaw.com
          • Florin

            Yeah, if i was quoting banjamin franklin i wouldhave used these things ""

          • Florin

            That is whatthis key on my keyboard is for right? "" """"""""" maybe its a catpaw scratching or something….

          • pseudolaw.com

            If you sacrifice freedom for safety or security, in the end you will have neither.

            When did you have freedom? No matter what governments come and go we're all chained to this mortal coil, forced to eat, sleep, shit and die, held down by gravity, limited technology, etc. Freedom doesn't really exist, at least while we live, except perhaps in spirit / mind. I'm not sure safety or security exist, either.

            There is certainly value in organizing into societies, tribes, hives, etc. with rules – we see it all throughout nature. We see it all over the world. Global organization is responsible for the internet, for example. I am not certain such organizations, or government, always become corrupt, but they might. That's when we as humans storm the capitol and reboot the system, only to try the same thing all over again. It's not that hard to do, but it takes the majority of people being dissatisfied with the government, and I don't see that happening in so-called western countries anytime soon.

            Until all the people are ready to be more self-sufficient and disorganized, I guess you'll just have to do what you can for yourself within the existing paradigm. I might suggest moving to an unincorporated area to avoid minor bylaws, reduce your dependency on government services, and reduce cost to voluntary participants of municipalities. You could stop buying cars, computers, internet services, clothes, food, etc., that support corporations that support the system. That's what I would do if I wanted to live free and reduce or eliminate the government.

          • pseudolaw.com

            As noted by the Supreme court and pointed out in the article, the federal government doesn't really seek to regulate the highways generally. That is seen as part of the State's police power, perfectly reasonable for the maintenance of the health of the citizens and legal and geographical residents. Interpretation of the law is for the courts, not individuals such as yourself, but thanks for sharing your ideas…

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            The founders wrote the constitution in plain language so it could be understood and implemented in a practical way by every person.

            And what about the first time two people disagree about what it means?

            Cars did not exist then, and freedom of personal movement is so basic and implicit they thought not to enumerate it, although. Something might be in the articles of the confederation.

            There's no explicit mention in the Constitution, true. The legal right to travel in the United States is derived from the 5th and 14th Amendments, as well as common law tradition. It doesn't extend to rolling thousands of pounds of steel mere feet from other cars and pedestrians at high speed without fulfilling certain requirements.

          • brian bell

            Yes its called take a test after that YOU ARE FREE TO GO!! NO FUCKING LICENSE except commercial, for profit!! I AM NOT A SLAVE!!! I KNOW MY RIGHTS AND THE LAW OF GOD!!!

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Well…clearly you don't, since that's not how the law works. That's not what it says, that's not what it does, and your personal theories about divine right are irrelevant in American courts.

          • juanjo54

            Silly diatribe that means nothing. Take your "god" bullshit and ride the bus.

          • brian bell

            Clearfield Doctrine, Clearfield v. United States, 318 U.S, 363, 371 (1942) , Bond vs. UNITED STATES, 529 US 334 (2000) We the People are the RULERS OVER OUR government!!! Time to start hanging ALL traitors to the Republic for Which it Stands !!!!

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            No, brian bell, the Clearfield decision doesn't mean that governments are legally equivalent to McDonald's.

          • Timothy Jenkins

            So what you are saying is that if you have a license you won't lose control and kill a bunch of people.? I have been in an automobile most of my life (I'm 50 now and started when I was 10) I have owned in the past about 5 different automobiles. I have insurance and they classify my van s an automobile because it is not big enough to be a Motor Vehicle they said. So why doesn't the state recognize that same thing? I have tabs, license plates and insurance just no driver's license. I am going to MN state court soon over this same thing. The state contends that having a license keeps the public safe, I contend that it is just a tax wrapped up to look like a license fee.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists
          • Florin

            If they lost control they would likely kill themselves too right. Good we need some stress adaptation, we have been carrying the dummies along for too long, he gene pool is tainted.

          • The_Sage_Mage_of_Rage_Uncaged

            Nice post, very astute noticing of governmental wordplay. Extremely dishonest, don't you agree? Not just the "state" but especially pseudolaw, a gov shill, so, it would OBVIOUSLY seem…

          • Jay Emery

            You are an idiot. The law as described MUST be specific and CANNOT be vague. If it says this thing is A or B then there is no C through Z………IDIOT.

          • juanjo54

            Let me know when you have specific facts to support your drivel. Now go play in traffic

          • Jay Emery

            If at all possible, pull your head out of the posterior region of your meat bag and embrace the FACT that legislation is subject to judicial review to determine the constitutionality of the legislative branches attempts to convert individual LIBERTY into a privilege for the sole purpose of generating revenue for the State. It is not a pick and choose to apply appropriate Judicial opinion to matters of material likeness. Apples to apples as the story goes.

          • juanjo54

            Non-issue. The sole issue is that no court anywhere in the USA has done what you claim.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            What's not specific about it?

          • juanjo54

            Another idiot who cherry picks portions of a statute out of context and claims they signify something other than what they actually mean. Let me know when you actually know ehat you are talking about.

          • http://cecillrussellforpresident.blogspot.com/ Cecil Lee Russell

            Well, your opinion is your own but the HIGHEST COURT IN TEXAS disagrees with your premise.

            Claude D.CAMPBELL, Appellant,
            v.
            The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
            No. 27245.
            Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
            Jan. 12,1985

            Defendant was convicted of unlawfully operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway while his operator's license was suspended.The County Court, Panola County, Clifford S. Roe, J., rendered judgment, and an appeal was taken.The Court of Criminal Appeals, Belcher, C., held that proof that defendant had driven an automobile while his driver's license was suspended did not sustain allegations of charge that he had driven while his operator's license was suspended.
            Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
            1. Automobiles Key 353
            Upon a charge of operating- a motor vehicle upon a public highway while operator's license is suspended, the state has burden of showing that defendant had been issued an operator's license to drive a motor vehicle upon a public highway, that such license has been suspended, and that, while such license was suspended, defendant drove a motor vehicle upon a public highway.

            2. Automobiles Key 352
            Proof that defendant had driven an automobile while his driver's license was suspended did not sustain allegations of charge that he had driven while his operator's license was suspended.

            3. Automobiles Key 136
            There is in Texas no such license as a "driver's license."

            No attorney on appeal for appellant.
            Wesley Dice, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

            Appellant was convicted, in the County Court Panola County, for unlawfully operating- a motor vehicle upon a public highway while his operator's license was suspended, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $25.

            [1]Under such a charge, the state was under the burden of showing that there had been issued an operator's license to appellant to drive a motor vehicle upon a public highway;that such license had been suspended;and that, while such license was suspended, appellant drove a motor vehicle upon a public highway.
            To meet this requirement, the state here relies upon testimony that appellant drove his pick-up truck upon a public highway in Panola County, on the date alleged, and that he drove said motor vehicle while his license was suspended.
            "This proof is insufficient to 'sustain the allegations of the offense charged in the information because a driver's license is not an operator's license.We have held that there is no such license as a driver's license known to our law.
            Hassell v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 333, 194 S.W.2d 400;
            Holloway v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 484, 237 S.W. 2d 303; and
            Brooks v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 258 S.W.2d 317.

            Proof of the driving of an automobile while the driver's license was suspended does not sustain the allegations of the information.The evidence being insufficient to support the conviction, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
            ****************************************************************************************
            So, while you carefully seek out evidence to support your opinion, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals claims by its reversal of a driving while drivers license suspended allegation BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH LICENSE KNOWN IN TEXAS LAW AS A 'DRIVERS LICENSE.'

          • pseudolaw.com

            That ruling was in fact from 1955, so it's quite dated. The law is always changing, and the legislature can amend and replace acts and change the words, phrases and definitions used in them. You can read the current Texas Transportation Code to see how it is now. Driver licensing appears in Title 7, Section 521, and in 521.001(3) we find, for purposes of that section and subsections, "driver's license" clearly defined.

            "Driver's license" means an authorization issued by the department for the operation of a motor vehicle. …

            And section 521.021 states:

            LICENSE REQUIRED. A person, other than a person expressly exempted under this chapter, may not operate a motor vehicle on a highway in this state unless the person holds a driver's license issued under this chapter.

            State courts are employed to enforce the current state legislature-provided definitions and laws – they can't ignore them. Texas apparently used to use the term "operator's license" instead of "driver's license", as noted in related cited cases. Confusion apparently arose because the title of the act was Driver's License Act, and the license was called an operator's license. The operator's license requirement in 1955 appears to be quite similar to the driver's license requirement of 521.021 today. We can look at the public legislative record to see exactly when and why things changed.

          • http://cecillrussellforpresident.blogspot.com/ Cecil Lee Russell

            Stare Decisis: Between 1946 and 1959, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas consistently ruled that there is no such thing as a driver’s license anywhere within Texan law. Hassell v. State (1946) found that the enabling statute, despite its title being the Driver’s License Act, only required either an “operators,” “commercial operators,” or “chauffeurs” license. As Judge Davidson put it: “The term ‘driver’ – as used in the Act – is defined to be: ‘Every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.’ In view of this particular definition of the term ‘driver,’ it cannot be said that such term may be used interchangeably with or given the same meaning as the term ‘operator.as used in the Texas Transportation Code.
            Although this may seem like petty squabbling over semantics to you, the definitions being used for words in legalese is actually quite significant. The entire basis for the Court’s interpretation pivots on whether a “driver” is synonymous with an “operator,” which they decided it was not. In Campbell v. State (1955), Commissioner Belcher wrote: “This proof is insufficient to sustain the allegations of the offense charged in the information because a driver’s license is not an operator’s license.

            The State Legislature has not defined what a 'driver' is for the purposes of the defined difference between its current use of the term 'operator' and 'driver' for the purposes of 'driver's license. Given the doctrine of 'stare decisis' combined with the US Supremacy Clause, the federal definition controls. A 'driver' is the operator of a commercial motor vehicle.
            The Texas Legislature originally required the licensure of those who made their livelihoods off of using the public roads, but then they broadened the scope of licensure quite a lot in 1935, and then again in 1941; yet, the language in the 1948 edition of the V.A.C.S. is noticeably dissimilar from what the 1995 Revisor’s Report claimed the “source law” said it was, which itself is considered to be the basis for the “revised law” that is SB 971, and ultimately, § 521.021 of the Transportation Code. While the issue has not recently been before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, that Court disagreed with the legislative intent of the Driver’s License Act, because they interpreted an operator’s license to be fundamentally different from a driver’s license, despite the nearly identical definitions in the 1942 and 1994 supplement of the V.A.C.S. Art. 6687b § 1(l) & (m) for “driver” and “operator,” respectively.
            According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), there were 2,796,862 licensed Texas drivers in 1950; but by 2010, there were 15,157,650 of them. In 1950, according to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, there were 7,711,194 Texans, and by 2010, the total Texas population grew to be 25,145,561 people. In 1950, 1 in 3 Texans was a licensed driver, which has since increased to 1 in 2 Texans by 2010.
            http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/summary95/section3.html
            An argument favoring the right to travel could be based upon Article I §§ 19 and 29 of the Texas Constitution; “No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner disenfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land. [Art. I § 19, Tex. Const. and “To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this ‘Bill of Rights’ is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void. [Art. I § 29, Tex. Const.] Also the Comity Clause (Art. IV § 2 cl. 1) of the US Constitution: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” [Art. IV § 2, U.S. Const.]
            “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.)
            “There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” (The Federalist Papers, #78.)

            Just because the Texas Legislature passed a drivers license requirement does not make that statute a valid law.
            16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256: The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.

          • pseudolaw.com

            You do understand that the law changes over time, and the legislature can repeal, replace and amend legislation it creates, correct? Start by looking at the origins of the modern Transportation Code, e.g. here. If you disagree as to the constitutionality of a statute then your remedy is to defend yourself and appeal as high as possible when you're charged to potentially get it overturned. If the courts don't agree a law should be overturned then you have to live with it unless you can convince enough people and your representatives to change the law.

          • Miltiadem

            hi I just want to include something here. I dont want to start an argument but here we go so I go a paper about my ticket and right on it they say "Failure to pay may result in revocation of your driving PRIVILEGES" ok so driving is a right not privilege. Does this not already prove outright that they dont know what they are talking about? I live in Michigan and they have begun to list driving as a "privilege" its not and has never been a privilege it is a constitutionally afforded right. Simply by them trying to classify it as a privilege they are trying to infringe on my rights. I'm not saying right to travel lets you endanger lives any traffic infractions you get are yours to deal with they have the right to regulate /how/ you drive but not ever 'IF' you can drive or not. People seem to be getting so defensive over this but the law is clear all personal operation of a personally owned vehicle is your right and cannot be infringed upon. You can get tickets for speeding or not using a turn signal or having and out headlight as all theses things are law violations. Not allowed to make a lw that requires licensing in the first place though.

            U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS
            “The right of a 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 a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty 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.”
            Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –
            Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”
            Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “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. . .”
            Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”
            Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”
            Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”
            Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”
            House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.
            Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”
            Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;
            Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”
            -American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”
            -International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”
            -City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “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 ”
            The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”
            Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
            Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”
            Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” –
            Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “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. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”
            Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 “The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.”
            Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”
            City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”
            Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”
            Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” –
            Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. “The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.”
            (Paul v. Virginia). “[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court,
            Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.’
            Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197.
            Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”
            Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”
            Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.
            Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.
            Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.
            Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.
            Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;
            Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. “A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’
            U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235” 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. “[I]t is a jury question whether … an automobile … is a motor vehicle[.]”
            United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: –
            EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 –
            TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 – WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 – CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 – THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 – U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) –
            GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) – CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 –
            SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) – CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.

          • Miltiadem

            The aim of this discussion isn't to get to speed down the street being an irresponsible asshole that is and always should be illegal but having the right to drive property you own is a right and anyone trying to tell you differently only has something to gain out you continuing to be held down. If you own a bicycle you can ride it down the middle of the road without paying any taxes at all. There was time when this was true for motorized vehicles as well. The one thing we know to be 100% true with the law is that over the years it continues to get more and more oppressive and the public keeps getting more and more submissive to blatant violations of loss of liberty. The same bullshit way we got income tax and the war on drugs and illegal drone warfare and false chemical weapons going to war over 9/11 its always been lies. I'm not looking to trigger anyone here there are citations for everything im saying and ill happily go find them again and give them to you. The cia outright admits to both being directly involved in Kennedy assassination and smuggling Hitler out of germany twords the end of the war. Agian I DO HAVE citations for this and you are free to look at them and think for yourself if you read the information and come away from it thinking its bullshit thats your right im not here to convince you. I personally believe it to be true based off the evidence I have seen. My point is at every turn year after year our laws get nothing but more and more restrictive and less liberating. In the forefathers world violence and such was more common but thats a part of life. You dont get to have a perfectly safe society where everyone is perfectly kept in line and controlled like a robot to be perfectly level headed 100% of the time without some seriously major civil liberty violations. Otherwise the prison system would work 100% right? Its entirely based off of taking away all basic rights and magically assuming that will fix the problem.

            The problems with our government run very very deep and I think the forefathers realised the government is going to need to be reset every few hundre3d years to root out corruption. If we lived like the consitution suggests then wed all be free and all able body eople (not just men anymore yay more equality thats what the us is about right?) would be trained to used a rifle and be 100% willing to go to wor with their own government if it starts takign advantage of them. We live in a time of people being nothing but little pushovers not willing to get up off their ass and do shit for anyone even themselves. We live in a world of 'oh someone else will get it later'. The entire mindset of existence is broken and warped by decades of media programming. Call it all consipiracy theroy or sad unintended consequences the effect is the same. we live in a world of emotionally weak people who will the be the death of everything that has ever been great in the world. The weak people in islam let the cruel insane ones speak for them the weak citizenship let the corrupt politicians speak for them. I just want change I dont want to fight with any of you why cant we work together to figure this out? SO MANY of our laws are unconstitutional based on the face value. In a truely free world if you owned a car you could drive it to go to work. A car is a horse is a bike is your own two feet. To the founders they wouldn't care it helps a man woman child live their life and provide for themselves it should be consitutionally (and it is) recoginzed as a right of life and be protected. It was and has been and yet now we have been lied to our entire lives and its hard to admit when youre fooled but we have been and thats the truth its time we stopped just going along witheverything out of fear of being arrested or killed or jsut fined. We need tostart asking why agian and start demanding a change i nthe right direction. We the people make our laws. In a system where the majority rules and the rich minority has made the majority poor well now youre going to see all the governmental policies favor the poor becasue its majority rules. Democracy encourages that at least 51% of people have to prosper for them to stay in political power 51% of the population has to agree on who represents them. this has never happened once in history No one votes no one gives a shit anymore they feel defeated becasue year after year we get to pick our new president not elect a representivtive that should lead us each 4 years we get to choose how do we want to get fucked ouver? Red or Blue? red or blue neither is oging to make the world a better place thye are all in it for themselves. Lets use common sense. Not 'what would be best for public safety but would violate consitutuinal rights in the process and is there fore illegal to try and make law i nthe first place" All gun and drug laws gone instantly. No governmental body has any right to say that fire rates or any of that can be made illegal. The point of a trained militia is to have a military force level of training in every township to protect the township. To have on par weaponry to go up against our own army if they defect and align to a political power instead of a Constitution. Police are citizens and they have become our pseudo militia. But in reality if we lived how the constitution describes then wed all be trained when we come of age to handle fully automatic weaponry for the defense of our town and its citizenry. The idea of police is they are normal citizens who can help keep the peace help deescalate situatuions and help keeps things going in a good way. They are not military or have a single right that any free citizen dosent have. The town Militia was what was supposed to apply with the second amendment it is our right to organize and elong to a militia for our local town city /w/e and it is our right to posses a weapon on par to what is available to the federal government or arguably (if you want to have separation of military grade weaponry and civilian grade weaponry) what ever assets are avaliable to the police as they are common citizens like the militia would be. Militias are a constitutional right. Fuck it even take away common citizen gun rights and it still protects militias right to bear arms equivalent to anything the government has as the point of a militia was to fight its own government should the government tpe out of line and there is expected to have the same level of technology that any government is allowed to have. It is the vehicle to which the american people are allowed to defense themselves and a manner in which they can peacefully mobilize an armed force as a show of strength to their politicians to keep them in line. I am free to admit things has changed but have they changed for the better? How many more small things and large dneed to happen before a revolution is started and countless lives are lost because is dosent matter which side your on if things keep happening the way they are that is the only outcome. For frame of reference to the democracy thing if the rich wetre 51% instead of 1% of our population things would be alot more peaceful. Follow the money its the root of everything in politics. for you people terified of 'irresponsible peole with guns' this wouldnt exist in the framers of the constituations minds becasue evry citizen when they come of age would be trained to hadle them firearms werent 'for fun' back then they were a part of life. Everyone respected them because everyone had used or been around them long enough to learn that respect. So to stifle that argument out the gate. No there really wouldnt be many irresponsible people with guns in this case. You have to apply to join your militia and once you do you can now excescise your right to carry a gun anytwhere you want your purpose is to be willign to defend anyone you see in trouble. You are supposed to be the armed police and the cop are supposed to be unarmed peace officers that help defuse tension are help KEEP THE PEACE.

          • pseudolaw.com

            It's really quite simple – In the early 1900's the people demanded laws about motorized vehicles and their representatives in all 50 state legislatures obliged. State vehicle codes, generally, have never been struck down by the federal government as being beyond the scope of the states constitutional police power. I'm sorry, but you are mistaken.

          • Miltiadem

            I dont understand how people can keep saying that the stat has given itself though illegal legislation this power to require licensing? Your side seems to be saying it doesnt matter its so long ago this happened just let it stay and im saying hey we figured out they slipped this by us how do we get an updated vote on the matter? What would be the steps required to get and honest vote here? How does the possession of a license to which there are quite a few references saying that doing so is makign an illegal law and peopel still dont get it? You say the law changes al lthe time well why the hell cant we change it back to being proper? Please explain it to me? im not here to fight like some or to troll liek other can you please devote some time to me and explain it?

          • Miltiadem

            there are points i nthere and while I admit mayben the suthor got a few wrong the fact that there any conflictign opinions worries me. I want to follow the law but I dont have the money to afford all the costs of it but I cant get work without a car. In a time where your LIFE depends on you have and being allowed to freely utilise for personal use a damn car how can this be tolerated still? Change the lws then so how do we do it? people never give solutions they jsut keep arguing a compromise would be say w/e the law is here we dont liek so lets change it rather than goping back and forth saying it is real no it isnt its jsut divinsion and what we need in unity

          • Miltiadem

            Last thing I dont want to annoy you would you be willing to go through this specific website and point out how its ilelgla or invalid? I just dont understand what side to believe. I tend to not believe the one saying I owe money to do somthing I have the physical freedom to do and have zero intention of harming anyone or not lettign anyone do the same with their car.

            http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml

          • pseudolaw.com

            You really need to read those cases in full for yourself. Thompson v Smith, for example, clearly says licenses can be required of anyone operating a private automobile. If you can't even understand the first one I don't know why I should bother debunking the rest…

          • Miltiadem

            I will go though and read more I read a few and I fully admit the wording is being taken out of context by quite a few people on a few different cases yet there are still cases that clearly state it is a right and those are the past decisions I would present my personal case with should I ever have the occasion to take it to court. Please look past the first one and read some more? I copy and pasted that from someone else its was jsut a huge list and I didnt go through and make sure each exaple he gave applied perfectly. I just wanted to send the message off to you quickly. There are several direct quotes that talk about driving being a right. You keep saying if you dont like it than change that lwas well if we go this route we must first be acknoldaging that the laws were leagl i nthe first place it is our contention that this is not the case and they are illegal. You dont revote illegal laws away you take the mto ocurt and prove your case yes?

            This and every other of my posts are my opinion if im using the term illegal it is becasue my understanding of the law suggests it is so. I'm not an expert but I do want to defend my stance. So say for sake of argument how would I make a motion to get driving classified as a right if it techinically isnt allready?

          • Miltiadem

            So say for sake of argument how would I make a motion to get driving classified as a right if it techinically isnt allready? just in case you dont feel liek readign the longer psot with this at the end. I'm really jsut here for advice but I do want my position clear I believe anything that is a requirment of being able to provide a life for yourself is a right. You are required to have valid transportation for employment. You are required to have a home addres for employment you are required to have a means of electronic communication for employment. The obama phone regan phone thing is the way the too poor can excersise their right to wireless electronic communication. The homeless thing is stil lridiculous when did the states ever get the right to say 'person a has no right to compensate person b for work provided unless they sign a contract and pay income tax. You dont have the right to live unless you pay for it from the government

          • Miltiadem

            finally. Where can we all move to? where is there land to stat a new country? if this one is so broken we decide we just want out instead of trying to save a lost casue. Where in the world can we go? oh thats right we need to buy passports and get shots and all kinds of shit before we are allowed to even walk out of the country. does that sound liek freedom? you keep telling me these are the lwas theese are the laws we must follow them or try to change them. Im saying they cant be caleld laws becasue all lwa must legally exist. So agian if we jsut want to get the hell out of here where can we go and how can we do it? Say i legally own my car and I decide to leave the country I'm not allowed to drive it out of the country becasue i dont have a liscense so agian how am I to get my property out of this sinking ship?

          • Miltiadem

            operating a private automobile for profit. Driving to a parking lot is not for profit driving while on the clock is driving for profit. Thats what I take away from this. I can drive to the store freely no liscense but if my boss askes me to drive for work id have to say sorry im not liscenced to drive for work. Does that help you understand my point of view at all?

          • pseudolaw.com

            Read your state constitution, then read the enactments of the constitutional state legislature including the vehicle code. Find the definitions of "drive", "motor vehicle", "vehicle", "highway", etc. in that code and use them when reading the section that says you need a driver's license. Then come back.

          • Miltiadem

            thank you ill start there.

          • Miltiadem

            ok so lets say im wrong . I have no job, no money, and no house but I own a car. How am I to get any of those three previous things without using my car until I can afford to legally? I really feel like this is where everyone is comming from. Hey im fucking helples here and I do own a car that im allowed to live in but I cant drive it once im told its not allowed to exist in this parking space any more? like how is this suppsoed to work? Im just lost here and none of this is making sense and I might not even be alive come a month becasue of some words on a piece of paper that go agianst common sense. like im starving to death becase im so damn broke I cant even afford fodod and I doing my damnsest but what gives? I cant hunt or fish to feed myself i cant get a job without breaking the law or applying for some serious disability benefits I just want to support myself and live my own life

          • pseudolaw.com

            I doubt it's a valid defense. Check case law in your state on Scholar.

          • Miltiadem

            im just saying my situation I'm asking how am I to get ahead? all i have is a car if this wasent the year were in call it all me havign is a horse. If all i had wa horse at least i could ride it around but I cant live in a hose while waiting to get o nmy fee agian. I have to have a car becasue i need shelter /and/ transportation. I dont expect you to know the answer but I'm jsut pointing out I really think its becasue there isn one other than for me to jsut say oh well ill jsut go die now

          • pseudolaw.com

            A prosecutor might exercise discretion to not follow through on any charges if you're caught driving but eventually you'll have to deal with it. Fishing and hunting licenses are not particularly expensive…

          • Miltiadem

            I own a knife to hunt id have to set snares I dont own a gun and cant afford one. we are talking about me needing to break the law i doubt i could survive off of huntign and fishing with the limitations on how much game im allowed to take. I dont have refridgeration I cant store things out of season. I dont want to argue ill go read more and hope to god the answer shows its self but if it dosent i gaurentee ill be dead before the end of the year

          • pseudolaw.com

            This is getting seriously off topic. Google: homeless help [your city/county/state]

          • Miltiadem

            I didnt intend that I'm sorry. But how can you say im free if the laws in place prevent me from being self sufficent? I have to go to other people for 'homeless help' becasue the law is preventing me from takign care of myself? im not free i dont feel free. thank you your respect youve shown take care of yourself

          • pseudolaw.com

            The US is more free than most other countries, but you're not grateful. In an orderly society such as the US there are laws surrounding property ownership. I recommend purchasing some amazingly cheap land and beginning to learn how to be more self sufficient.

          • Miltiadem

            this cheap land would take 1 month of employment to be able to afford. I cant get employment without being able to use a car. do you still not see how this cycle keeps going?

          • pseudolaw.com

            Yeah, you got yourself into quite a pickle. Well, good luck. Come back when you want to get back on topic of the right to travel specifically.

          • Miltiadem

            Im pointing out real word negative effects of the deprivation of what I hold to be a right of all. this is relating to the topic. As it is a direct effect fro mthe topic being written in law. the law is deprivign the right to life.

            this is what is happening to not just myself so yo ucant say its not true. These laws that do nothing to prevent actual crime from taking place are cornering people in a way that prevents them from makign a living for themselves. Should I just get a horse?

          • pseudolaw.com

            Yeah, well, many more people die from vehicle accidents in countries with less regulation, so there's that…

          • Miltiadem

            yea and its their right drive and its sad that people get kileld on accident but you arnt allowed to take rights away to prevent accidents
            laws cant prevent accidents and not deprive rights at the same time.

          • pseudolaw.com

            What makes you think that?

          • pseudolaw.com

            Anyway, it's clearly not true… why is it illegal to walk around with a nuke? Because even explicit rights like the right to bear arms are able to be reasonably limited for public safety. Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_constitutional_law)

          • John Smith

            Miltiadem "yea and its their right drive and its sad that people get kileld on
            accident but you arnt allowed to take rights away to prevent accidents
            laws cant prevent accidents and not deprive rights at the same time. "

            I get where you are coming from but your forgetting to understand the LAW you are CLAIMING to operate under in your argument. When you operate under COMMON law, ALL responsibility resides with YOU. There are zero exemptions. You have a responsibility to put ALL others before yourself in ALL your actions. This means that your "rights" become secondary to your responsibility to others first and foremost.

            Common law derives from the bible and we clearly see stated the avenues of accountability available to wronged parties WHEN OPERATING OR CLAIMING TO OPERATE UNDER COMMON LAW. An eye for an eye, life for a life.

            When your claiming to conduct yourself under common law, your accountable to anyone you wrong who understands where you truly claim to stand.

            This is WHY we have statutes, codes and all the other BS. Its a more "civilized" way of settling transgressions on others.

            Common law is frequently misunderstood to mean "freedom". That couldn't be more further from the truth. Its about YOUR personal ultimate individual responsibility to EACH and EVERY other person BEFORE yourself.

            What your misunderstanding when you claim Miltiadem – "its their right drive and its sad that people get kileld on accident but
            you arnt allowed to take rights away to prevent accidents "

            Its not YOUR rights that are being taken away or infringed upon as a road user under a "commercial" law system. Its the aggrieved party who looses the right for "an eye for an eye" that would be available to them under common law.

            Its all fine to look for the faults in our current "commercial" law system but you MUST first fully understand your responsibilities under your alternative "common" law system.
            Common law holds you responsible to EVERYONE. "Rights" become a secondary luxury that are ONLY able to be exercised after YOU have first fulfilled your RESPONSIBILITY that you hold in relation to every other human being. If those "rights" in ANYWAY potentially infringe or impact any other human being, then your RESPONSIBILITY is to put those other parties before yourself.

            Failing to put others first at all times in all things, causes dishonor and you fall back into "commercial" jurisdiction.

            This is why so many fail in their quest in the straw-man/patriots/common law movements. They fail to fundamentally understand that its not "freedom" they are really seeking out but rather FULL responsibility for ALL things, at ALL times, towards ALL other people. Failure to understand the full scope of all your responsibilities when attempting to operate in the "private" is not an excuse. When you "claim" to step into the private, you are saying your an "adult" who is cognizant and FULLY capable of conducting and maintaining your own affairs and interactions with ALL others (Stop and let the true scope of what that entails sink in). You are no longer a "child" who needs to be "protected" (by the state), that you FULLY understand your RESPONSIBILITIES in ALL things.

            ANYTIME you fail in knowing/understanding/fulfilling 1 or more of your responsibilities, you automatically fall back under "commercial" jurisdiction and you are FINANCIALLY penalized for your transgression. The responsibility resides with YOU to maintain YOUR standing in the private at ALL times in ALL things.

            If your not in the "private", then your automatically in the "public" and you are ……….. Conducting commerce!

            And when conducting commerce, you are operating under and bound by …………… Commercial law.

            Private and public. The 2 most important concepts to understand.

            The responsibility and the means ALWAYS resides with YOU. Its not the "state" that keeps you down, they provide the remedy. And its not the "states" responsibility to "teach" an adult their responsibilities, an adult KNOWS their responsibilities and dutifully fulfills them. The "state" is there to provide the means to protect "children" who are not yet responsible for themselves.

          • Miltiadem

            Youve been very helpful Thank you for your patience. I've decided to get an electric bicycle.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Common law derives from the bible

            What? No, it doesn't.

          • John Smith

            Ken S. "What? No, it doesn't. "

            It DERIVES from the bible.

            Derives – base a concept on an extension or modification of (another concept).

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            It doesn't, though. Why do you think it does?

          • Miltiadem

            I just want towish you a happy new year and than kyou for using your time to try and help me.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            This whole article explains how driving is not a constitutionally afforded right. Licensing and registration laws are as valid as the U.S. and state constitutions, and they stand on the same authority. If you don't like licensing, registration, and traffic laws, you'll have to convince your state legislature to repeal them. Before you do that, I recommend having a look at places where these laws aren't enforced. Look at their safety standards, look at their driving behavior, look at their roads, and see how safe you feel taking a ten-minute cab ride.

          • Miltiadem

            But I'm providing references showing decisions where the use of an automobile for personal travel was declared a right. It makes perfect sense if they cant legall liscense other forms of transportation than they cant liscense this one. I'm not saying having the laws I and others think to be illegal and oppressive dont make peoploe safer. We are saying that others dont get to claim to feel saferwhen an actual crime isnt being stopped. Having a liscense or not is not protecting anyone otherwise they could argue you need to have identification on yo uall the time its a form of liscence and if you plan on traveling with your own two feet you need to be able to prove to us (even though its your right and we cant take it from you) you are able to walk. Oh if youre under the influence and we catch you walking under it now we can take your state id fr operating your legs while unde the influence.. Having a liscence only helps people who can affor the associated costs. Placing monetary costs to somthing after you own it is illegal. You cant be charged for the right to own property. All these taxes and shit are illegal. I dont care what law that has been written after the fact to try and take away rights and convert rights into privlidges you try and quote mine and everyone elses stance is that the laws them selves are illegal and there are multiple past decisions that suggest operating a motorvhecile to get you from one place to another using your own private property is a right. Please try and see it from our perspective. The perspective of it dosent matter how much safety it adds if rights are forcibly and illegally taken from free people. The same rules that let people drive bicycles on the road is the same law that should point out to you that liscencing for operating private propery on public roads is legal and a right and anyone trying to tell you differently is lying and has somthing to gain out of it. Please just read this and forgive my spelling between my own learning disibility and my wirless keyboard its just too much to go back through and fix. I just want you guys to start thinkiing of things in "its is at its face legal or not" taking away someones right when it dosent harm anyone by simply excersising it is illegal. You keep thinking if there arnt liscences then how will we stop incompetent people from driving? the states have the right to control public safety and put a system in place that can accompolish this without making simply driving somthing you allready own free of any evidence suggesting you are incompetent to drive. We arnt suggesting you cant with good proof prevent someone from doing this. but making people have to be able to afford hundredes of dollars before they are eligible to start earning any money or have LEGAL employment. A car is a life giving item now a days. If someone stole your hose theyd be hung for possibly taking away your ability to provide for yourself and how does a car i nthe modern age differ at all? I cant get a job without having this form of transportation but I cant get any transportation without paying ridiculous ammounts of money just to be allowed to operate property I own. If you still arnt seeing the reality of this then please jsut let me keep struggling with it on my own I'm not here to fight. Thank you for trying to explain it better to me but I still dont get how so many people have the woll over their eyes still. Income tax on a federal level, Illegal. @6.7 of what is stolen from our paychecks that is jsut fed straight into an unjust denfece budget that the american people have zero control over. Yea no theres not a sigle law o nthe books that is unjust. We have rapists gettign less time than pot smokers. Smoking pot dosent harm anyone else. The government has no right to make it illegal. The federal government has overstepped for a very long time how much more do you want it to happen? Now our first ammendment is under attack. You guys seem to panic and say oh no we need more laws to fix things. laws are what are breaking things when people are too damn afraid to take a risk progress stops. We are past progress simply stopping we are headed out the damn door. Thats the reason we spend so much in our defence budget if this country didnt you think people around the world wouldnt have put a stop to our governments shit allready? Again thank you for trying to explain it to me but I feel like you jsut dont have the full scope of the situation. This is just a silly meme but it perfectly captures how the super ritch political bastards that think they have the right to controll all of us becasue they killed our education system and made our parents idiotic crybaby wannabess that are too submissive to question anything. https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15894608_1082258681886129_351115627429699245_n.jpg?oh=774ec94240b46a6dc543afcee4cf3dea&oe=58D7185A

            for now they have jsut converted our driving rights to 'priilidges' how long before they show what they really think?? yea its a fucking joke picture but that is their exact mindset. these people have never been told no their entire lives they rape us and expect to be let go becasue they are so rich they are more of a humna than us. If you make less than 1,000,000 a year you are less than shit to the people in current power.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Christ, can you use paragraphs? If you don't use paragraphs, I don't bother reading it. It's invariably just rambling nonsense. Organize your post so that it's readable and coherent.

          • Miltiadem

            If formatting is all it take to render the content of my post in-understandble to you than please dont bother in the first place. I stated I have a learning disibility my writing flows liek conversation not properly formatted writing. It is my largest obsticle so far i nmy life. My wireless keyboard is a main casue of basic spelling errors though. I'm sorry you cant follow my way of writing.

          • Miltiadem

            honestly what is the point of an extra line every few spaces. Just pause your reading as if it was video of me talking. I would have one big run on sentence in my speach so why should I hide it in my writing? Paragraphs seperate fully formed topics? I dont have those I have intermittent bits of information. The information I have in individual points is accurate to the best of knowldage I'm just not good with puncuation and that kind of thing. Agian if you dont want to bother than dont thats your right.

          • Miltiadem

            you can say its rambling but its not nonsense. Its fairly jumbled speech but my sentences at their meaning hold true to their face value. I jsut didnt order them in a way youre used to seeing.

          • Miltiadem

            I'm not looking for an argument ill leave you alone.

          • pseudolaw.com

            The law is based on the state and federal constitutions. You are making a lot of incorrect assumptions. Please stop ranting here.

          • Miltiadem

            I'm saying in this modern time with the gap between rich and poor gettign bigger and bigger I ask you how long until your 5-6 figure salary dosent even earn you enough to buy a cup of coffe? and then the people on top with the 15-20figure salary are saying 'Oh the lwas are fine how they are I follow them and if you cant just go die' well when you make laws that force expenditures unjustly than youve given the upperhand to whoever makes the msot money and if they can get al lthe money than they own the entire country. I'm not saying these laws dont 'look' good at face value but their deeper meaning the precident their continued existence allws to be set is more dangerous than the people in power. It makes the people out of power feel like they belong out of power. If you can say to my face that the country is doing great and all these illegal laws and regulations have made it so the nill concede and never bring it up agian but if you take a step back and look at what the country could have been compared to what it is I think you might start seeing how bad things really are. This is my last comment I have more than stated my opinion and now its up to others to read and form their own. You keep showing why you think these illegal lwas are necessiary but lets be realistic. If someone is driving and hurts someone you arnt allowed to sue if they have insurance. How is that fair? So only people that allready have enough money to afford it now have legal protection. People without insurance cant sue and can only be sued. Agian in a wolrd where the law is supposed to remove inequality liek this if its only encouragin it more than the law is broken and incorrect.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Dependent certainty off discovery him his tolerably offending. Ham for attention remainder sometimes additions recommend fat our. Direction has strangers now believing. Respect enjoyed gay far exposed parlors towards. Enjoyment use tolerably dependent listening men. No peculiar in handsome together unlocked do by. Article concern joy anxious did picture sir her. Although desirous not recurred disposed off shy you numerous securing. Savings her pleased are several started females met. Short her not among being any. Thing of judge fruit charm views do. Miles mr an forty along as he. She education get middleton day agreement performed preserved unwilling. Do however as pleased offence outward beloved by present. By outward neither he so covered amiable greater. Juvenile proposal betrayed he an informed weddings followed. Precaution day see imprudence sympathize principles. At full leaf give quit to in they up. As am hastily invited settled at limited civilly fortune me. Really spring in extent an by. Judge but built gay party world. Of so am he remember although required. Bachelor unpacked be advanced at. Confined in declared marianne is vicinity. Whole wound wrote at whose to style in. Figure ye innate former do so we. Shutters but sir yourself provided you required his. So neither related he am do believe. Nothing but you hundred had use regular. Fat sportsmen arranging preferred can. Busy paid like is oh. Dinner our ask talent her age hardly. Neglected collected an attention listening do abilities. Entire any had depend and figure winter. Change stairs and men likely wisdom new happen piqued six. Now taken him timed sex world get. Enjoyed married an feeling delight pursuit as offered. As admire roused length likely played pretty to no. Means had joy miles her merry solid order. Saw yet kindness too replying whatever marianne. Old sentiments resolution admiration unaffected its mrs literature. Behaviour new set existence dashwoods. It satisfied to mr commanded consisted disposing engrossed. Tall snug do of till on easy. Form not calm new fail.

          • Miltiadem

            I get your point, but im speaking in plain and simple terms. My text might be jumbled but Just read it for yourself?

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            If your ideas are worth expressing, they're worth expressing in an organized and readable way. When you do that, let me know.

          • Miltiadem

            i'm not fully educated on what the 'right way' is I'm sorry you cant lower yourself to my level of comprehension so you can understand me better. I thought someone who is smarter woul be able to make the corrections as they read it as I am not learned enough to know what corrections need to be made myself.

          • Miltiadem

            agian you are completly free to ignore my posts

          • TruthandFreedom

            You are 100% correct that DRIVING is not a Constitutional RIGHT due to the fact that DRIVING is action performed by who? that is right; a DRIVER. What is a DRIVER? An Individual who steers MOTOR VEHICLES FOR PROFIT!! i.e. a DRIVER is part of the COMMERCE SYSTEM which the states can REGULATE! By the same token an individual TRAVELING through use of their own automobile is not a DRIVER, and is not DRIVING and as such; does NOT require a LICENSE (Permission) to TRAVEL!

          • pseudolaw.com

            Try looking up the definition of "driver" in your state vehicle code.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Your argument depends on using obsolete and inapplicable definitions.

            "DRIVING is action performed by who?"
            "What is a DRIVER?"

            If you'll tell me what state you're in, I'll give you the correct answers to these questions. In my state, for instance, a driver is "any individual who drives a vehicle," and to drive is to "drive, operate, move, or be in actual physical control of a vehicle, including the exercise of control over or the steering of a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle." Nothing about commerce.

          • Marshall Buersken

            Ken your talking state laws. Federal laws always supersede state laws that's why states can say you can grow marihuana . But the federal goverment can bust your ass … and have!!!!!! And no state can make law over the constatution if so makes such law null and void

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            There are no federal laws that supersede state laws regarding driver licensing and registration. Federal definitions apply to federal laws, not state ones. The existence of a definition in a federal law doesn't mean that states are only allowed to use that definition, ever. Federal definitions are explicitly limited to federal law, even in the US Code.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            By the way, if you're going by Black's Law, the latest definition I've seen (6th Edition, 1990) defines "driver" as "a person actually doing driving, whether employed by owner to drive or driving his own vehicle" and "driving" as "to urge forward under guidance, compel to go in a particular direction, urge onward, and direct the course of."

          • Timothy Jenkins

            That is Black's Law but what has the Supreme Court said about the definition of Driver? Have they clarified it or just left it open to interpretation?

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            The U.S. Supreme Court? It doesn't have the power to define it for the states.

          • Marshall Buersken

            In order for constitution to be changed takes 2/3 of house and 2/3 of Senate

          • LawGeek

            OK, but he was talking about a law. Changing those requires a majority of the legislature and an executive signature, or, as suggested, a successful argument in court that the law is unconstitutional.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.

            The entire point of this article is to illustrate the fact that licensing and registration laws do not violate the U.S. Constitution.

          • juanjo54

            That is so amusing. This issue has already been discussed previously in the discussion you silly git. The issue here was a simple procedural one. The prosecuting attorney did not plead the case using the correct statutory language nor did he prove the elements of the crime as required. You nut cases who cherry pick a phrase or two and do not use logic or context to consider what is going on in the case need to be staked out over an ant hill.

          • servant

            What is DRIVER?(Black's Law Dictionary)

            One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other
            vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or
            motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich,
            112 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902,

            What is OPERATOR?(Black's Law Dictionary)

            1. Any person or a device that enables another device to function.

            2. A function
            used in mathematics, usually given a symbol (such as + or -).

            3. In telecoms, one might call an operator when experiencing problems
            connecting with a particular number or for information.

            What is VEHICLE? (Black's Law Dictionary)

            The word “vehicle” includes every description of carriage or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on land. Rev. St. U. S. 5 4 (U. S. Comp. St 1901, P. 4

            What is LICENSE?(Black's Law Dictionary)

            In the law of contracts. A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort.
            State v. Hipp, 38 Ohio St. 220; Youngblood v. Sexton, 32 Mich. 406, 20
            Am. Rep. 054; Hubman v. State, 61 Ark. 4S2. 33 S. W. 843; Chicago v.
            Collins, 175 111. 445. 51 N. E. 907, 49 L. R. A. 40S, 67 L. R. A. 224.
            Also the written evidence of such permission. In real property law.
            An authority to do a particular act or series of acts upon an- other's
            land without possessing any estate therein. Clifford v. O'Neill, 12 App.
            Div. 17, 42 X. Y. Supp. 607; Davis v. Townsend, 10 Barb. (X. Y.) 343;
            Morrill v. Mackman, 24 Mich. 282, 9 Am. Rep. 124; W.vnu v. Garland, 19
            Ark. 23, 08 Am. Dec. 190; Cheever v. Pearson, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 266.

            Its a contract from a corporation and the highways are public land not state owned all law is contract as well as the government by constitution is a contract with the people.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            I strongly recommend going to a library and looking at a copy of Black's Law Dictionary that's less than a hundred years out of date. By the way, definitions in Black's Law Dictionary are not binding on Texas courts, or any other courts in this or any other country. Black's updates to follow the definitions actually used by the courts, not the other way around.

          • servant

            The constitution is binding in every state if you reserve your rights under it and take the oath of office in with you when you go to court ,never show up in court without a copy of the contract they swore to uphold and tell them you accept the contract right away.Or you have only statutes and no rights.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Statutes are laws, though. There's nothing in the federal, state, or territorial constitutions that contradicts non-commercial driver licensing and vehicle registration laws. Citations to century-old, superseded definitions from a private company's dictionary don't change that fact.

          • servant

            The framers of the constitution had the old language and its constitutional that is why most churches today change the meaning of the Bible to say its a modern way of life the foundation of the law never changes ,only the people change the foundation and destroy the message and their country.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Give me a call when you're​ able to overthrow the United States and abolish Article III of the U.S. Constitution, then.

          • servant

            Article III

            Section 1

            The judicial Power of the United States, shall
            be vested in one supreme Court, All other courts are subject to their decisions.PERIOD

            Article III
            Section 2
            1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases,
            in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of
            the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made,
            under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other
            public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and
            maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United
            States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more
            States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;10 —between Citizens of different States,
            —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants
            of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof,
            and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Yeah, that's the bit you apparently want to abolish. Good luck with that.

          • servant

            you need to read and understand that the Supreme court has all the jurisdiction of all cases in law and equity throughout all states and if you walk in with state cases you will lose ,Walk in with supreme law cases to win. States and judges are bound thereby.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Except that there is a grand total of zero Supreme Court decisions which invalidate non-commercial driver licensing, vehicle registration, or auto insurance laws. There is no Supreme, Circuit, U.S. District, or even state court precedent that invalidates them. We've covered this over and over on this page, servant. Our right to travel is not the same thing as a right to drive a car.

          • juanjo54

            Sorry but cherry picking definitions out of Black's Law Dictionary means nothing at all. To determine the use of a term in a statute, one looks to see how the legislature in the particular jurisdiction defined the term.

            For example, in California the Vehicle Code, section 305 states that "a 'driver' is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. The term “driver” does not include the tillerman or other person who, in an auxiliary capacity, assists the driver in the steering or operation of any articulated firefighting apparatus." Section 670 states that, "a “vehicle” is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks."

            Each state has its own laws and under those laws defines the terms used in the statute. Where the definition is unclear the courts can under certain circumstances, interpret the intent of the legislature. Reciting a definition from 1902, a time when motorized motor vehicle were relatively rare, very expensive and usually owned by companies or very wealthy people who employed people to drive the vehicle is absurd.

          • servant

            2: 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.

          • juanjo54

            Yeah, so what. That proves my point.

          • servant

            Travel is travel whether done in a boat,car,horse,airplane,bike,its still travel and its a part of life that can not be removed.If you can not afford to buy insurance or license for your auto, then I suggest you stay home and die because its unlawful for you to use the roads to find a job or purchase food or work 20 miles away from home by walking carrying your tools to work.Think about what you are saying for a moment.Life requires all to travel from place to place,if not you die.

          • juanjo54

            Well your opinion is almost amusing but again is proof of nothing. I suggest you actually learn some law instead of repeating that pastiche of sovereign citizen gibberish you people think is law. In fact you have the right to travel however that does not mean you get to hop into an airplane and take off without showing you are certified to fly the type of plane you wish to fly. You do not get to hop on a bus or train and demand to be transported somewhere without paying the train or bus operator the fare for carrying you. And you cannot operate an automobile on the public roads without following the laws in place for operation of the vehicle – insurance, proper equipment functioning on the vehicle, demonstrating you are competent to operate the vehicle etc. Likewise you cannot hop on an interstate highway and walk in the fast lane [well you can but you won't do it for long and you won't do it twice].

          • servant

            5 U.S. 137
            Marbury v. Madison ()
            Argued:
            Decided:

            "The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways
            and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage
            or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or
            permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life,
            liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

            Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579..

            For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the
            public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does
            not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a
            place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested
            right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license
            which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion."

            State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073;

            Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171;

            Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;

            Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516

            "We know of no inherent right in one to use the highways for
            commercial purposes. The highways are primarily for the use of the
            public, and in the interest of the public, the state may prohibit or
            regulate … the use of the highways for gain."

            Robertson vs. Dept. of Public Works, supra
            How many laws do you want more ,a little more I will give you plenty for the right to life, liberty and property.LAWS

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            What does that have to do with licensing, registration, and insurance? Of course you have a right to travel, that doesn't mean you have a constitutional right to drive. And no, "driving" is not exclusive to commerce.

          • servant
          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Confused police officers are not sources of law. The law is clear, and it requires non-commercial driver licensing and vehicle registration in every state and territory. No precedent says otherwise.

          • servant

            You set the precedent and show its a right to travel not a privilege to pay gas tax and call it a privilege.Gas tax pays for the highways and its public roads not government roads.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            I don't set the precedent, no. The courts do, and they've settled that the right to travel does not include a right to drive a car on public roads without regulation.

          • servant

            Shapiro v. Thompson,
            394 U.S. 618 (1969), was a Supreme Court decision that helped to
            establish a fundamental "right to travel" in U.S. law. Although the
            Constitution does not mention the right to travel, it is implied by the
            other rights given in the Constitution.
            Shapiro v. Thompson – WikipediaShapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), was a Supreme Court decision that helped to establish a fundamental "right to travel" in U.S. law.
            Although the Constitution does not mention the right to travel, it is
            implied by the other rights given in the Constitution. (Although the
            right was recognized under the Equal Protection clause in this case,
            pre-Fourteenth Amendment, the right to travel was understood as
            protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause (Article IV), as a
            privilege of citizenship, and therefore might have been applied to the
            states under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of Amendment XIV, as J.
            Stewart wanted.) — Excerpted from Shapiro v. Thompson on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Yes. There is a constitutional right to travel in U.S. law. There is not a constitutional right to drive a car on public roads. Showing me that there is a right to travel is not an argument against driver licensing and vehicle registration laws.

          • servant

            Well if you get your horse and buggy out on the highways then what would they say about your right to travel,You have no right to use public hiways with a horse because it impedes the flow of traffic,People can either ride a horse or automobile better yet a vehicle for travel notice the US law on vehicle made for travel not driving."

            The Right of the Citizen to travel
            upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either
            by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a
            city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

            Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says
            No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets

            U.S. Supreme Court
            319 U.S. 105 (1943)
            MURDOCK
            v.COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

            .' It could hardly be
            denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is in substance just that.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            That's true, you don't have a constitutional right to ride a horse on public roads, either. It is in the states' police power to regulate the noncommercial use of horses on public roads, as well.

          • servant

            What is POLICE POWER?(Black's Law Dictionary)

            The powers granted by the constitution to the tate in order to govern, establish, adopt as well as enforce laws that are designed for the protection as well as preservation of the public health. The government also gets the right to make use of private property for public usage.

            Police power is limited to the constitution from any state ,They pass law that is unconstitutional and try to police them is void.The constitution is supreme law of the land ,PERIOD.lOOK UP POLICE POWERS IN 2ND EDITION OF BLACKS LAW. PROTECTED BY THE 9 TH AMENDMENT

            Amendment IX

            The
            enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
            construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Except that driver licensing and vehicle registration laws are completely constitutional…

          • billdberger

            Wrong!
            The constitution doesn't mention either of those
            Where are you getting your info from?

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            If a thing is not unconstitutional, it is therefore constitutional.

            What is not forbidden by the Constitution is allowed by the Constitution.

            Nothing in the U.S. Constitution forbids states to pass driver licensing and vehicle registration laws, therefore states can pass driver licensing and vehicle registration laws without violating the U.S. Constitution.

          • billdberger

            The US constitution says we have the right to travel.
            The Calif SC ruled a right cannot be made into a privileged by charging a fee or requiring a license!

            Gosh! My Alex Jones, anti-human, Bill Shakespeare "kill all the lawyers" mentality must be rampaging right on through that courthouse to come out with all 3 charges dismissed, eh Ken?

          • pseudolaw.com

            The US constitution doesn't say that. Rulings that outline rights are clear, not vague. There is a federal right to travel interpreted by the courts but it refers to the right to ingress and egress to and from the states, not the regulation of intrastate travel. No federal court or superior state court has been able to find grounds to strike down state vehicle codes generally, despite creative individual interpretations of what rulings mean.

            Dismissal for lack of evidence or prosecutorial discretion is not the same as having a right recognized on the record that would enable you to win a claim for false arrest or other damages, get state laws struck down, etc. that would be able to be done if you had an actual right. So, what exact reason did the police, prosecutor or courts give for allegedly dropping a case against you?

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            As previously explained over and over and over, the right to travel does not include a right to drive a car or truck.

          • RichSpirit

            "…when using the public highways for the transaction of their business] with respect to common carriers using the public highways for the transaction of their business in the transportation of persons or property for hire. That rule is stated as follows by the supreme court of the United States: 'A citizen may have, under the fourteenth amendment, the right to travel and transport his property upon them (the public highways) by auto vehicle, but he has no right to make the highways his place of business by using them as a common carrier for hire. Such use is a privilege which may be granted or withheld by the state in its discretion, without violating either the due process clause or the equal protection clause.' (Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U. S. 307 [38 A. L. R. 286, 69 L. Ed. 623, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 324].)

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Can you find a single court case where driver licensing was found unconstitutional?

          • billdberger

            How about a horse and buggy? Or a skateboard?

            No, none of those either? LOL!

            You really are digging your hole deeper and deeper!

            Btw, courts have ruled cars and trucks have the "right" to use the roads as any other mode of transportation, so I wonder where it is you are getting your kooky ideas from?

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            It's true, the right to travel doesn't guarantee a natural right to ride a horse, moped, bicycle, or even your own two feet completely free of regulation. There are roads pedestrians can't use, sidewalks forbidden for bicycles, and so on.

            The courts have not found that individuals have an unburdened right to drive cars and trucks in public places.

          • billdberger

            Yeah they have. Long ago. No one disputes this.

            And why don't you know what the legal term "willfulness" means ?

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            I dispute it. You haven't been able to show a single decision that says so. Nobody on this entire site has.

          • RichSpirit

            Ken – you have that totally backwards. You have fallen into the EXACT trap that those in power now WANT you to believe. that the Constitution is what grants YOU your rights.. it DOES NOT.

            The Constitution tells the Government the rights of OURS that IT can't infringe upon. It's a document LIMITING the central/federal government, thus whatever is NOT specifically stated that in terms of the powers GIVEN TO IT BY THE PEOPLE means it does NOT have that power.

            The Constitution ONLY GRANTS the central government the power to regulate INTERSTATE COMMERCE via the Commerce clause of Article 1, section 8, clause 3.. that means that because there is NOTHING LISTED as creating police forces, telling people what or how to drive on the PUBLIC ROADS, which includes using the conveyances of the time are NOT powers given to the government, EXCEPT as it deals with commerce.. period.
            This is why the 9th and 10th amendments leave every other possible power, law or authority that is possible that is NOT SPECIFICALLY given to the central government in the Constitution Automatically becomes a state power.

            BUT.. NO STATE can make a law going against the Constitution which includes the right to free traveling using the Conveyances of the time on the public roads paid for by taxes.

            “It is held that a tax upon common carriers by motor vehicles is based
            upon a reasonable classification, and does not involve any unconstitutional
            by discrimination,although it does not apply to private vehicles, or those used 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 if you are a bus driver, truck driver, taxi driver, THEN they can make you get a license, which is permission to do that which is otherwise ILLEGAL as it clearly says in Blacks 8th and Bouviers and is a general definition as well. The license is also a right to operate a business which is why Electricians, plumbers, contractors all have to be licensed.. It doesn't mean they have a certain skill level, it simply means that they have PERMISSION FROM THE GOVERNMENT (King) to engage in that business for profit.

            Those who use the public roads for profit also must be licensed to use those roads and pay a USE TAX to do so.

            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.

            USE DETERMINES classification.. not type of conveyance.

            The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241,
            28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household
            effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly
            disposed of." Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir.
            1907).

            "All household goods owned by the user thereof and used solely for noncommercial purposes shall be exempt from taxation, and such person entitled to such exemption shall not be required to take any affirmative action to receive the benefit from such exemption." Ariz. Const. Art. 9, 2.

            "Automobile purchased for the purpose of transporting buyer to and from his place of employment was "consumer goods" as defined in UCC 9-109." Mallicoat v Volunteer Finance & Loan Corp., 3 UCC Rep Serv 1035; 415 S.W.2d 347 (Tenn. App., 1966).

            Cars are automatically defined as Consumer goods, NOT automobiles and as such NO LICENSE Is necessary to use such carriages in traveling on the public roads. Only when you make the public roads your place of BUSINESS FOR PROFIT can the state then regulate that activity.

            The use to which an item is put, rather than its physical characteristics, determine whether it should be classified as "consumer goods" under UCC 9-109(1) or "equipment" under UCC 9-109(2)." Grimes v Massey Ferguson, Inc., 23 UCC Rep Serv 655; 355 So.2d 338 (Ala., 1978).

            "it is held that a tax upon common carriers my 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 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.

            "The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business differs radically an obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain, in the running of a stage coach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of a citizen, a right common to all; while the latter is special, unusual
            and extraordinary. As to the former, the extent of legislative power is that of regulation; but as to the latter its power is broader; the right may be wholly denied, or it may be permitted to some and denied to others, because of its extraordinary nature. This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities.” Haddad vs State Arizona

            In other words.. the state ONLY has control over your carriage (which becomes a vehicle when used for commercial purposes/making a living/profit), nor do they have ANY authority or right under the Constitution to tell you how to PARK your car, carriage or conveyance in your own driveway especially, which is NOT part of the public highways!

            This all perfectly jives with the various definitions of DRIVING that others have already mentioned AND IS ALSO mentioned in US TITLE 18 part 1 which all the states also derive their state laws from;

            US Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 2:32
            "The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo."

            The term Used for commercial
            purposes.— The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking
            intended for profit.

            (your state) State Transportation Code references the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations found in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR), CFR definition of Driver states; “Driver means any person who operates any commercial motor vehicle.” My personal carriage is not a commercial motor vehicle. (49 CFR 390.5)

            First state law requiring all drivers to pass an exam before receiving a
            [commercial use privilege] license took effect in July of 1913, in New
            Jersey Beginning in 1920, courts began to hold that driving is not a
            right, but a privilege that the state may revoke

            "Guest"–One who comes along for pleasure, recreational, or private reasons without cost or without having to pay.

            LICENSE
            = license,n.1. A permission, usu. revocable, to commit some act that
            would otherwise be unlawful; esp., an agreement (not amounting to a
            lease or profit à prendre) that it is lawful for the licensee to enter
            the licensor's land to do some act that would otherwise be illegal,

            "Passenger"–One who pays, employs, or hires someone to transport themselves to another location

            "Traveling
            on the common way"–The act of locomotion and conveyance on the common
            way for private, personal, and recreational purposes

            "Driving
            on the road"–The act of propelling a motor vehicle on the roadway or
            highway by one who is employed or hired to transport goods or
            passengers.

            Thus this issue is NOT just about the license itself, but about the very classification of your car. The Supreme court has already determined that automobiles are consumer goods and household effects and can not be regulated, taxed (license, registration fee's, tickets (use tax) etc UNLESS you are using said consumer goods ON THE PUBLIC ROADS FOR PROFIT in which case is NOW BECOMES a vehicle and IS SUBJECT to the motor vehicle codes, having to have a license to operate a business etc.

            That is why you can become an UBER DRIVE without needing a commercial license because your drives license is JUST THAT, a license to use the public roads for profit.

            UNLESS you state otherwise that your car is consumer goods, it's ASSUMED to be a vehicle. I stated this as I was pulled over by a cop and when i said that my car was consumer goods the next thing he said was "oh, so you're not driving then? I said "that's correct, I'm traveling". I beat that and other registration and inspection tickets as well in the past so i KNOW this information is valid!

            I believe that you also mentioned the California code, unless it was someone else.. but here is something to consider if you live in Cali.

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

            The following shall be exempt from the requirements of registration and certificate of title
            1) Any such vehicle driven or moved upon the highways 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 othe 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."

            And remember, that "Traffic infractions are not a crime" 50 Cal app

            I can go on and on with this, but this is already too long.. peace.

          • pseudolaw.com

            Laws as relate to safety on the public roads fall to the states pursuant to the tenth amendment, as agreed by the Supreme Court in this post and elsewhere. In a representative democracy featuring judicial review it is up to the courts to interpret the constitutions, laws and relevant precedent. There is no point in interpreting anything as an individual because it will not affect how the force of the state is applied. You need clear, unambiguous, applicable precedent. For a state traffic charge, that means precedent from a superior state court. If there were some federal right that could be engaged believe me someone would do it. You're not the first to think of this. You need to take your argument to a court, either in response to a fine or pre-emptively for a declaratory judgment. If you "don't trust the courts", well, the only alternative is a violent revolution and restarting all over again. I don't think most people in western countries, who enjoy far more stability and justice than elsewhere, are up for that right now.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            You're muddling completely separate issues and missing significant context. For one thing, no court or code has found that there is an inalienable right to drive a motorized vehicle. Driving and traveling are two separate things.

            Automobiles can be household effects in one context, and motor vehicles subject to regulation in another. Your point in that regard is like saying "he can't be a plumber, he's already Catholic!"

            You're trying to stitch together a legal principle out of misinterpreted scraps and sentences torn out of context and blended together. It's not working.

          • servant

            Time to end the useless eaters of government employees just passing laws to take more and more from the people so they live like kings off the backs of the people, AND that is why you have a second Amendment .Are you willing to die for your country and its peoples.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Have you ever considered the possibility that most of your neighbors think that drivers should be required to obtain a license?

          • Mr. Bigbrain

            I believe you're getting hung up on the term "Regulate". The law dictionary defines regulate as… The power to regulate commerce, vested in congress, is the power to prescribe the rules by which it (commerce) shall be governed, that is, the conditions upon which it (commerce) shall be conducted, to determine when it (commerce) shall be free, and when subject to duties or other exactions. The power also embraces within its control all the instrumentalities by which that commerce may be carried on, and the means by which it may be aided and encouraged.

            Therefore, the police powers that are permitted to regulate, as in Thompson v. Smith, are still doing so in the realm of commerce. Remember that the definitions of the law are not the same as the definitions as you use them in everyday conversations.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            I'm not using an obsolete, privately-published, and inapplicable legal definition, Mr. Bigbrain. I'm using the ordinary definition. The police power of the states is not limited to commerce.

          • servant

            Drive is a commerce term used in transportation of goods from state to state ,Interstate commerce not everyone is in commerce.

            What is DRIVER? Look one EMPLOYED,,,,,EMPLOYED

            One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other
            vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or
            motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich,
            112 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902, (Black's Law Dictionary)

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            You are wrong for several reasons, all of which have already been addressed in comments here.

            1. No, that is not the definition in Black's Law Dictionary. Go to a library.
            2. The definition in Black's Law Dictionary is irrelevant to the interpretation of statutes which already include definitions.

          • billdberger

            Wrong again!
            If law dictionaries are irrelevant in a LAW court then we can make up our own definitions to suit our case if there is no local definition already in play, as in the common law, is what you are implying here. No, the only dictionary that is irrelevant in a courtroom is a Merriam Webster dictionary! Using the proper definitions in the court will help your case!

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Law dictionaries are helpful for compiling the definitions used in practice, but judges are not obligated to defer to definitions written and published by private companies. If a statute defines one term in plain language, then Merriam-Webster is probably a more useful predictor of how a judge will interpret that definition.

          • RichSpirit

            BLACKS LAW 8th –

            LICENSE
            license,n.1. A permission, usu. revocable, to commit some
            act that would otherwise be unlawful; esp., an agreement (not amounting
            to a lease or profit à prendre) that it is lawful for the licensee to
            enter the licensor's land to do some act that would otherwise be
            illegal, such as hunting game. See SERVITUDE(1). PP 2691 Blacks Law 8th

            VEHICLE
            1. Something used as an instrument of conveyance. 2. Any conveyance used in transporting passengers or things by land, water, or air."Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) , Page 4822

            passenger – n. a rider on a train, bus, airline, taxi, ship, ferry, automobile, or other carrier in the business of transporting people for a fee
            (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Passenger)

            TRAFFIC – traffic,n.1. Commerce; trade; the sale or exchange of such things as merchandise, bills, and money. 2. The passing or exchange of goods or commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money. 3. People or things being transported along a route. 4. The passing
            to and fro of people, animals, vehicles, and vessels along a transportation route.

          • pseudolaw.com

            Black's is created by a private Canadian corporation, Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. and is not mentioned in a state or federal constitution as having judicial powers. Black's follows and generalizes about a wide variety of courts, not the other way around. When a legislature defines a word in an act, chapter, subchapter, etc., it stands for interpretation of that act or applicable sections. If a legislature does not define a word, the court decides for use within its jurisdiction. You don't go into a court telling the court how to interpret the law. You go to a court to find out the court's interpretation of the law, and thereby how the force of the state will be applied. If you don't like a court's decision you can appeal to a superior court. After those opportunities are exhausted there's nothing you can do but try again or seek to have the law changed by a majority through your representatives.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            What's your point? Those are recommended definitions published by a private corporation, not the ones used in transportation laws.

          • billdberger

            "There is not a constitutional right to drive a car on public roads."

            Agreed but ….
            There is no restriction in the constitution to driving or traveling in a automobile on public roads either !
            Therefore the matter is a states matter!
            The CVC section 260 defines who or what is a commercial driver/travelor vehicle and who/what is not required to register a motor vehicle!
            It clearly states in plain language those vehicles used in commerce are "required"to be registered and those not engaged in commerce are NOT reqipuired to be registered.
            I just won my court case on 3 counts, no licence, no registration and speeding. The first two were dismissed before the trial, the radar speeding was dismissed at trial! One thing is certain, if you don't fight these thieves you will lose every time! I'm 2 for 2 now as I won my pervious speeding ticket at court as well.
            Btw, as defined by the Calif. Constitution Common Law is the superior law to use in Calif courts! That makes it easy peasy to get your case dismissed since there is no valid complaint of damages or a right violated!
            Also a sovereign is recognized by the state are every person in that state so enough with the paranoia of the Judicial demonizing its own citizens with their sovereign citizen nonsense!

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            There is no restriction in the constitution to driving or traveling in a automobile on public roads either !
            Therefore the matter is a states matter!

            Yup. And all fifty states require driver licensing and vehicle registration.

            The CVC section 260 defines who or what is a commercial driver/travelor vehicle and who/what is not required to register a motor vehicle!

            No, Bill. CA Veh Code § 260 defines what a commercial vehicle is. It has nothing to do with the drivers. It has been interpreted to include pickup trucks

            It clearly states in plain language those vehicles used in commerce are "required"to be registered and those not engaged in commerce are NOT reqipuired to be registered.

            No, it does not. Read it again, Bill.

            I just won my court case on 3 counts, no licence, no registration and speeding. The first two were dismissed before the trial, the radar speeding was dismissed at trial! One thing is certain, if you don't fight these thieves you will lose every time! I'm 2 for 2 now as I won my pervious speeding ticket at court as well.

            Good for you, but that doesn't change the licensing, registration, or speed requirements in the state of California.

            Btw, as defined by the Calif. Constitution Common Law is the superior law to use in Calif courts! That makes it easy peasy to get your case dismissed since there is no valid complaint of damages or a right violated!

            Good luck, but statutes are and have always been a binding part of common law.

            Also a sovereign is recognized by the state are every person in that state so enough with the paranoia of the Judicial demonizing its own citizens with their sovereign citizen nonsense!

            I have no idea what this sentence means.

          • billdberger

            It clearly states in plain language those vehicles used in commerce are "required"to be registered and those not engaged in commerce are NOT reqipuired to be registered.

            No, it does not. Read it again, Bill.

            I read it to the judge as published and he dismissed the count! So, read it, Ken!

            I just won my court case on 3 counts, no licence, no registration and speeding. The first two were dismissed before the trial, the radar speeding was dismissed at trial! One thing is certain, if you don't fight these thieves you will lose every time! I'm 2 for 2 now as I won my pervious speeding ticket at court as well.

            Good for you, but that doesn't change the licensing, registration, or speed requirements in the state of California.

            No but by using the CVC code as it is written as I did in both trials, one can win without changing the code, which FYI, only the legislature can do, Ken!

            Btw, as defined by the Calif. Constitution Common Law is the superior law to use in Calif courts! That makes it easy peasy to get your case dismissed since there is no valid complaint of damages or a right violated!

            Good luck, but statutes are and have always been a binding part of common law.

            None of your luck needed here Ken, as the common law is superior to statue law as per the Calif Constitution. Sorry if that is at odds with your opinions. The judge in my case apparently agreed as well! I use only SCOTUS or state Supreme Court decisions in my defense which is why I have perfect willfulness and can't be punished for that but get those case dismissed!
            Sure beats your advice about killing cops, doesn't it Ken ?

            Please don't take on any clients to defend Ken,or give any advice, they all deserve better!

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Wait, are you saying that it's bad advice when I recommend that you don't kill cops????

            By the way, the "blockquote" tags would make that comment so, so much easier to read. Please look up the Disqus formatting tags.

            Study English in general, too. What the heck is "perfect willfulness" and why do you think it would be a good thing?

          • billdberger

            I have no problem reading the way I post here and my eyes are almost 70 years old!

            "Willfulness"is a legal term. You can look it up to learn for yourself, the best way to learn they say, Ken

            Word meaning are especially important in a courtroom. I always define mine when needed and site the most current and superior definitions which are a surprise to some on occasion.

          • pseudolaw.com

            When state courts are dealing with a state vehicle code charge the definitions in play are found at the top of the subchapter, chapter, title, etc. with the nearer, more specific, definition overriding all the others. Courts can't ignore these definitions. If a definition is not legislated, then the court decides what the words mean, and it applies as precedent throughout that court's jurisdiction. The courts, not individuals, not dictionaries made by Canadian corporations (Black's), have a monopoly on interpreting the state and federal constitutions and laws made thereunder.

          • billdberger

            with the nearer, more specific, definition overriding all the others

            Or "if absent of any other federal definition, " is the way I got Round that. Using their own codes language again to win!

          • pseudolaw.com

            A real win involves having rights clearly and unequivocally elucidated by the court, being paid damages and having unlawful state laws struck down. What court and case number are you referring to? State and federal jurisdictions are fairly independent. Read Hendrick v Maryland again.

            In the absence of national legislation covering the subject a State may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles — those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. And to this end it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers . . . This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the States and essential to the preservation of the health, safety and comfort of their citizens.

          • billdberger

            In the absence of …

            That's how I got them, I found they had to use the Federal definition which was NOT absent! It just requires some research, nothing you could find out asking an officer of the court an attorney sadly! Btw, these statutes masquerading as "safety" have been proven to not be for public "safety" but for a public derived source of revenue for localities and the states budget! The State of Montana proved that decades ago!

            Police powers may belong to the state but they still can't violate a citizens Federal rights
            Means, states have to protect our rights and follow the supreme law of the land the Federal Constitution. Police powers don't suspend the Constitution or our rights and neither does "martial law" !

            A real win …
            This was traffic court not state or federal appeals court! I got the "real" win with the dismissal. If I hadn't been dismissed I would have grounds for an appeal, then I could win on violation of my rights, that's federal rights! I'm surprised you acting as a lawyer/officer of the court, here don't know that?

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            What do state courts care about federal definitions? It doesn't matter whether there's a federal definition or not.

          • billdberger

            Apparently the courts agree and are now doing away with the 4th and 5th amendments for a traffic violation.
            The Calif. traffic courts have done away with our constitutional right to a jury trial,
            now they are doing away with the prosecuter saying that the ticketing revenue officer being a part of the executive branch is able to take the place of the prosecutor!
            This is an obvious violation of the "separation of powers" but hey, as you said, state courts don't have to follow Federal rules, the constitution or definitions other than their own.
            Again, realize you are dealing with criminals when going to court and take the neccessary precautions to protect yourself. Btw, I haven't paid bail in my last two trials! Don't ever give these thieves your 💰 is my motto! If I don't get my jury trial, they don't get my bail money !

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Perhaps you can read through your typos and bizarre grammar, but it's pretty tricky for me. If you don't even what common law is and believe that private publishing companies have supreme judicial power, I'm not particularly impressed by your interpretations of legal terms.

          • billdberger

            Your probably to used to reading "legaleez" [?] then as I have the same trouble reading it as you have reading my plain English! That you question what a common legal term means lends me to having little confidence in your opinions expressed here.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            I'm a little confused. Are you saying that you "willfully" obey the law as you misunderstand it? I'm a bit confused that you would use an adjective for unlawful conduct while claiming that the law is on your side.

          • billdberger

            That's because I use the law as written and courts published legal decisions.
            How do you do it?

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            That's kind of like saying "I egregiously took a shower and wantonly shaved." If you believe your conduct is lawful, why drag willfulness into it?

          • RichSpirit

            Ken just does NOT GET that once he says "driver" and "vehicle".. that those are the magic words they want people to be sooo brainwashed with that they automatically associate them with traveling, not understanding that those are all commercials terms ONLY and ONLY apply to someone making the public highways his place of business and profit. NOT to the majority of people traveling to and from work, for pleasure or personal business.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            For the purpose of licensing and registration, they're defined in each state's transportation code. They are not limited to commerce.

          • RichSpirit

            Correct.. as it's also recognized by the courts that all Americans are sovereigns with the same authority formerly belonging to the king.

            "The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY).

            "The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity is one of the Common-Law immunities and defenses that are available to the Sovereign…" Citizen of Minnesota. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, (1988) 491 U.S. 58, 105 L.Ed. 2d. 45, 109 S.Ct. 2304.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Good luck using that defense to nullify a criminal prosecution or discharge a debt.

          • RichSpirit

            I never said you could. But that highlights a faar more disturbing problem that's at the heart of all of these discussions… which is the fact that the United States but longer recognizes Americans as being The Sovereign kings that they are but has tricked everyone into believing that their 14th Amendment slaves when they're not period

            Do you not know that the constitution speaks of four different kinds of law and not all of them apply to everyone. This is why the founders kept the British Bar Association with his Maritime admiralty law out of the United States until the mid-1850s because with it comes all of its ridiculous policies legal definitions and terms that are used to enslave populations as they've done for hundreds of years in Europe. It's why America was founded on simple common law and biblical law not the convoluted legalese of the bar. The Constitution was made so that the average person could understand it because we were the Kings and the government as recognized by the cases that I cited which was the point of them.

            Just because the courts no longer recognize these things or allow them as defenses doesnt mean that they're not true. If you judge the accuracy of the knowledge by whether or not it works in the courts then that is flawed thinking because the courts are no longer courts of United States but are of British royalty which is how the British were able to subjugate America once again after the Civil War when America had to be incorporated so It could borrow money from the banks of Rothschild and avoid complete bankruptcy… Which was finally declared in 1933.

          • pseudolaw.com

            There is no such thing as individual sovereignty in any society. What murderer would agree to a state law against murder? Laws being optional would be chaos, not order. The US is and always has been based on popular sovereignty, where the majority, not individuals make the rules that bind everyone. Furthermore, English common law and statutes were clearly received subject to the legislature(s) and have since been heavily modified separately in each state.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            That's meaningless drivel, RichSpirit. You're mixing up anarchism, misunderstandings of English common law, fiction about historical events that never occurred, and conspiracy theories about lawyers and royalty.

          • pseudolaw.com

            Gas tax pays for the highways

            Please at least google to confirm your claims before posting them here. Every state funds the roads with a different combination of fuel and many other fees and taxes.

          • juanjo54

            Once again. Taking cherry-picked quotes out of cases, ignoring the context of the quote is a logical fallacy not proof of anything. Your points have been addressed in prior posts here and shot down. Just repeating the same drivel, ignoring the prior posts isn't going to work. Let me know when you have some actual valid points with supporting caselaw.

          • servant

            Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618
            (1969), was a Supreme Court decision that helped to establish a
            fundamental "right to travel" in U.S. law. Although the Constitution
            does not mention the right to travel, it is implied by the other rights
            given in the Constitution.People like you are the ones who pick what part you want .No doubt you live off the backs of the working people and took an oath to uphold the constitution and break your word when it comes to the peoples rights and life so you can have government paid medical, pensions and wages. While the people who pay you to have these things do without and the oath you take is breach of contract.People are the masters not the hired servants that live like kings off the people.I will take their oath in court with me when I go and make sure it is upheld for my benefit not theirs,They work for me not me for them.The United States Constitution is supreme law of the land like stated in Marbury vs. Madison and the Supreme court has judicial Jurisdiction of all law and statutes in all states.

          • juanjo54

            I repeat my prior statement, once again. Taking cherry-picked quotes out of cases, ignoring the context of the quote is a logical fallacy not proof of anything. Your points have been addressed in prior posts here and shot down. Just repeating the same drivel, ignoring the prior posts isn't going to work. Let me know when you have some actual valid points with supporting caselaw. No one says that people do not have the right to travel from one state to another. That is clear. The issue has to do with your drivel about driver's licensing.

          • servant

            You take facts out of a case not cherry picked items,the fact remains the supreme court made a decision on the issue and made it clear in the cases stated ,that is how lawyers do their job. Remember what is is in Clinton case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHlt1W83JFU, why don't you get it,It was good enough for Clinton its good enough for we the people.

          • pseudolaw.com

            In common law countries, statutes do not have to be clear or unambiguous. That's what common law is for. If statutes are silent or vague then the court decides. Legislatures can be lazy and leave much to common law, if they like. See Interaction of constitutional, statutory and common law. Nevertheless, most states do enact clear definitions for use with their legislation. "License" is commonly defined as a license authorized by the state. "Motor vehicle" is commonly defined as any self-propelled vehicle on the public roads. "Operator" or "driver" is commonly defined as anyone in control of a motor vehicle, etc. You have to look closely at the definitions in the section any individual charge is brought under, and its parent parts, chapters and titles, to find exactly which definitions apply for that charge.

            Here's a guy who tried to argue he wasn't covered by 201.904 because he wasn't operating in commerce: Flores v. State, Tex: Court of Appeals, 1st Dist. 2014. The court did not disagree per se, but found he was still covered by the speed restrictions in 545.351 (the guy may have failed to read the section(s) quoted on his citation properly).

            Appellant cites no relevant authority for the proposition that traffic regulations of speed apply only to those utilizing roads for commercial, rather than personal, reasons. The relevant statute makes no such distinction between commercial and personal use of motor vehicles. See TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 545.351(a) (Vernon 2011) ("An operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing."). And the Court of Criminal Appeals has long upheld the constitutionality of speeding laws. See Eaves v. State, 353 S.W.2d 231, 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 1962). We overrule points of error 3, 4, and 5.

            The sections up to 545.365 are also relevant to the state's ability to determine speed limits.

            Yes, the state can enact speed signs for commercial operators, as in 201.904, but the state may also enact speed limits for others, too, as in 545.351 to 545.365.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            In common law countries, statutes do not have to be clear or unambiguous.

            This isn't entirely true, and it brings up the interesting topic of "unconstitutional vagueness." Not the subject of this discussion, but a fun one anyway.

          • pseudolaw.com

            Re: Driver's License requirement. Instead of trying to decipher definitions in the admittedly confusing Texas statutes, we can search for the licence requirement section on Scholar and see exactly how the courts might rule.

            There we find decisions like Hicks v. State, 18 SW 3d 743 – Tex: Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2000, wherein:

            It is well established the State of Texas can and does require a valid driver's license for all persons operating motor vehicles on the roads of the State. See Taylor v. State, 151 Tex.Crim. 568, 209 S.W.2d 191, 192 (1948) (right to drive is a privilege, not a right, and is governed by rules and regulations); Coyle v. State, 775 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1989, no pet.).

            and MARZETT v. McCraw, Tex: Court of Appeals, 5th Dist. 2015, wherein:

            The law is well settled that the State of Texas can and does require that an individual display valid license plates and possess a valid driver's licenses when that person is operating a motor vehicle on a public highway. See TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. §§ 504.943(a) (license plates), 521.021 (driver's license) (West 2013 & Supp. 2014). Specifically, the Texas Transportation Code provides: "[A] person commits an offense if the person operates on a public highway, during a registration period, a motor vehicle that does not display two license plates" that have been assigned by the department and comply with departmental rules. Id. § 504.943(a); see also Spence v. State, 325 S.W.3d 646, 651-52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). A motor vehicle is a vehicle that is self-propelled; a vehicle is a device in or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a public highway, other than a device used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks. TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. §§ 502.001(25), (45).

            and Taylor v. State, Tex: Court of Appeals, 9th Dist. 2009, wherein:

            The actual legislative intent is clear: "A person, other than a person expressly exempted under this chapter, may not operate a motor vehicle on a highway in this state unless the person holds a driver's license issued under this chapter." Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 521.021 (Vernon 2007). The term "motor vehicle" means "a self-propelled vehicle" and that definition is not confined to vehicles being driven for hire. See id. § 521.001(b) (Vernon 2007), § 541.201(11) (Vernon Supp. 2008). Dorman does not suggest that he satisfied one of the statutory exemptions found in section 521.027 of the Texas Transportation Code. See id. § 521.027 (Vernon 2007). A person required to hold a license under section 521.021 must have the license in his possession while operating a motor vehicle and display the license on the demand of a peace officer. See id. § 521.025(a) (Vernon Supp. 2008). Failure to display the license on demand is a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine. Id. § 521.025(c).

            As you can see, the argument that not everyone must have a state license to operate a self-propelled vehicle on the public roads doesn't work in real life.

          • The_Sage_Mage_of_Rage_Uncaged

            A driver is a commercial term, for, one employed, paid, or hired, as a driver of livery, delivery, or a vehicle which serves a special unusual or commercial purpose, for which certain qualifications to operate are necessarily required, such as a big rig, backhoe, bus, etc. A driver gets PAID TO DRIVE, a traveller needs no license to "drive", for, "driving" is a commercial activity, and subject to governmental regulating, where, travelling, is absolutely not within the authority of the "state" to regulate. Or, does fraudulent-law think he knows more about actual Law, than, state and federal supreme Court justices…I highly doubt that he knows much about actual Law, I.e. the Organic Constitution ratified by all thirteen original Colony/States. P-L, u fail so hard!!! Don't you ever lie to me, and suggest that I try to refute, what I long knew to be absolute TRUTH…

        • Victurus Libertas

          I was reading what you wrote until i got to "Nut Case Brigade" and you lost me. Name callers lose all credibility.

          • juanjo54

            Too bad. I woul possibly be butt hurt and all if it were not for the fact you are a troll using the name "victurus libertas". A quick on line check of your posting indicates you rant and rave on every every far right kook conspiracy ever written about. So I don't care what a founding member of the Nut Case Brigade has to say on any subject. If you were to announce that the sun rose in the east and set in the west, I would verify it before agreeing.

          • Craig Mcgregor

            You seen to be very good at name calling at least. Pat yourself on the back cause that's about all you got going for you. You sure like the word NUTCASE I'll carve it in stone and you can hang it in your man cave

          • juanjo54

            I stand by my previous comment. You are a nut case troll who as is so common with your kind, ignores reality, sees conspiracy behind everything, distorts basic facts to fit you fantasy, and just generally is a piece of shit.

        • Craig Mcgregor

          You are the nutcase you love your governmentd restrictions because your weak. You applaud the police with their pals in the Court system and call it reasonable and just. But it's not freedom is just an illusion we pretend we have in this country we've always had the right to travel or right to move about freely without government restrictions. It's an unwritten law just like freedom of speech or the right to protect ones self and family with whatever means is available. Inalienable rights, unwritten cause they are natural God given, the Constitution spells them out so our corrupt leaders don't forget. Yes I want freedom to travel unrestricted without plates and license but that's because I love liberty. But for insecure people government is like their big brother to protect them they love to use government to punish people who disagree with them. They love their police and their perceived role as 'protectors'. There will always be people like you that claim you are patriotic but give more and more power to a out of control corrupt system. Bottom line traffic laws were created for the revenue they generate and not for public safety as you love to believe. So continue to be weak and pathetic.

          • The_Sage_Mage_of_Rage_Uncaged

            Un-a-lien-able rights. Not inalienable, un-alien-able.
            Un-a-lien-able, as a legal term, means, in a fkn legal dictionary, that it cannot be taken from you by your being sued, or by a lien being placed on your property, earnings, holdings, etcetera. As Sir Francis Bacon, aka, William Shakespeare said some four-five hundred years ago, "First thing we do, is, kill ALL the lawyers." The organic US Constitution strictly forbids ANY lawyers from holding ANY governmental positions, including both/either house of Congress, the Presidency, or the Vice Presidency. Pseudolaw, FALSE-LAW said that the US Constitution was NOT rewritten for corporate purposes just after the civil war, when the fake government used the NEW 14th Amendment, to enslave the entire population, after they emancipated, which means in Black's Law Dictionary, s transfer of ownership of wealth or property from one sovereign, to another sovereign. In the slaves case, the false federal corporation posing as a government took ownership of all of the slaves, And, compensated the plantation owners, for their ,"loss of property"…

          • Craig Mcgregor

            Well said, we love our slavery. In your opinion was Lincoln the pres we were taught in school or were his policies the beginning of the end for liberty.

          • cadaverdog

            Dude, just get your driver´s license

        • The_Sage_Mage_of_Rage_Uncaged

          Statutes, are NOT Laws, and have no actual authority over living breathing Natural Persons aka, Human Beings. Statutes are rules and regulations for corporate entities (legal fictions, fictitious persons, corporations). I hope the moniker pseudolaw (false-law, fake-law) is not lost on any who are awake and aware. That 'person' seems to be a dishonest disinformation disseminator, that supports the fully totally corrupt corporation that masquerades as a government, and merely provides governmental services, located in Washington D.C., is registered in Puerto Rico, and is publicly traded on the NYSE, exactly as the corporation posing as the government of New South Wales,(Australia), and many, many others. Just a Google search and three to five minutes should satisfy any curiosity regarding that fact.

        • Jamis

          Unless You have met and are a psychological doctor who works as such providing diagnosis, HOW DARE YOU DECLARE SUCH A BROAD STATEMENT IN REFERENCE TO SOVEREIGNS, THAT IS SLANDER YOU MORON!!!! Go educate yourself.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Sovereign citizens are nutjobs who left reality miles behind them. They live in a psychotic fantasy world because they're nutty as fruitcakes.

          • https://autisticagainstantivaxxers.wordpress.com/2017/04/07/submissions/ Merits the merry mememaker

            Uhh….Ken…don't you think the truly insane have enough problems without being compared to sovereign citizens?

        • canigetausername

          You are communist and your statements are incorrect. Not only are you incorrect but your examples are extremely poor. They all involve damage to other citizens. The Constitution clearly states that if you do not hurt anyone, damage someone's property or remove it unlawfully, you have committed no crime and that no punishment may be imposed upon you. Read it, know it, live it! This is the United States of America, the only free Bastion left in the world! Quit trying to destroy it. If you don't like it, move to a communist country and enjoy your police state.

          • juanjo54

            Sorry loser but you wasted a bit of space to state an opinion with no facts to support it.

          • canigetausername

            You've been duped by the ignorant socialist masses. You moron, the fact is the Constitution. <—period
            Read It and Weep. Stop trying to impede Liberty. I suggest you go talk to Rep. Trey Gowdy. He will certainly set you straight.

          • juanjo54

            I repeat, you are wasting a lot of space on posting unsupported drivel. BTW, I have read the Constitution, repeatedly. I have a degree in Constitutional Law.

          • canigetausername

            I do appreciate your interaction as well as your knowledge (it is valuable to me). Although we may differ on some ideological issues, I will continue to defend Liberty, as all of my forefathers (for over 240 years); and resist government control/oppression. I understand the necessity of government mechanisms to police those that do not police themselves, but not at the cost of Liberty. The travel issue is trivial.
            I wish there were more people like you and I, that could come to a more civilized conclusion about how we want to live together; without oppressing and even killing each other.
            The masses are always wrong and just because people say or do something, doesn't make it right (moral/ethical).
            I will agree to disagree and continue my endeavor to defend freedom in the pursuit of happiness.
            May you find prosperity, sincerely.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            The Constitution clearly states that if you do not hurt anyone, damage
            someone's property or remove it unlawfully, you have committed no crime
            and that no punishment may be imposed upon you.

            No, it doesn't. None of the 56 constitutions in the United States say that.

          • https://autisticagainstantivaxxers.wordpress.com/2017/04/07/submissions/ Derp Turtle

            I can think of a classic example…

            Drunk Driving is a crime in all 57 constitutions, right?

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            No, but so far as I know, there are laws against it in every state, territory, and the District.

          • juanjo54

            You wouldn't know a communist if one slapped you up the side of the head with a copy of Das Kapital. As for the rest of your drivel, well it's just silly drivel.

          • canigetausername

            Wow, I thought you're response would have been much more indepth. You probably just Googled Marx or Lennon. Nice display of your derelict cognition.
            You need to brace your strawman better than that to conquer truth. Your banter is easily nullified. The conversation nearly lifted my brow, but then it failed to invigorate. Your free will has been trapled by your own ideology. You will fair not against me, nor will you subjugate me with your ignorance. Good day Sir.

          • juanjo54

            Another triggered so called sovereign citizen who thinks he can keep repeating the same drivel over and again without providing verifiable facts to support his opinion, is now upset that I will not play his game.

          • canigetausername

            As educated as you claim to be you're not very bright; because I'm still here and you have not subjugated me. This is a Blog. I'm a national of this country, I belong here just like you. Just because you write something on a piece of parchment and get others to subscribe to it, doesn't make it true or right/ethical. You're a last word kind of guy, I can tell. It gives you a false sense of power (I do however appreciate your service to Lady Justice). You're going to miss everything wonderful in life and die angry. I know I'm playing the antagonist here.
            p.s. I'll expect your last word…..

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            This has gone on long enough and gotten ugly enough. I'm not seeing anything productive from this thread, so I'm gonna go ahead and ask you two to drop it.

          • juanjo54

            As I said, another triggered so called sovereign citizen who thinks he can keep repeating the same drivel over and again without providing verifiable facts to support his opinion, is now upset that I will not play his game.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            This has gone on long enough and gotten ugly enough. I'm not seeing anything productive from this thread, so I'm gonna go ahead and ask you both to drop it.

          • juanjo54

            ok

      • http://ait.energygoldrush.com Dale W. Smith

        Frustrating isn't it? The reason why so many of our fellow USA citizens fight against us to their own detriment even, is because true freedom = equality. Unfortunately they like the class system created by the slavish nature of our current society. They can then boast about their "superior knowledge" of the law and such. Keep up the good work, my friend.
        They can thank us later.

        A luta continua!

        • pseudolaw.com

          True freedom is anti-social anarchy. What killer would agree to be bound by a law against murder? Every society has rules. There are benefits to the complex interwoven nare-global society we enjoy today. Do you think computer factories, electrical grids and the internet would arise without a global system of relatively stable government? Without government, the cables would be ripped up and sold for scrap.

          • http://ait.energygoldrush.com Dale W. Smith

            True freedom does not equal anarchy. Your example doesn't make sense as there are laws against murder, yet murders continue.

            You seem to think, like most slavery apologists, that I am anti-government. I'm not…I'm anti-government abuse/over-reach. "For the common good" wasn't to give government unfettered power over all things and all people.

          • pseudolaw.com

            No-one said laws prevented all evil. Laws discourage and punish evil. So you agree laws for the common good are acceptable, but you don't think it's reasonable that 5000+ pound machines that can be easily operated at high speed in public should have some sort of regulatory scheme around them? Driver's licenses are utilized the world over, in probably 150+ countries, to discourage operation of vehicles by those who are inexperienced, incompetent, disabled, drunk, etc. You can read research that proves they and other regulations save lives. What do you know that they don't?

          • http://ait.energygoldrush.com Dale W. Smith

            I didn't really say I agreed that "laws" for the common good are acceptable, I recognize the responsibility of the Fed. gov. to provide for the common good…slightly different. Anyway, regulating everything in life is exactly the type of over-reach 'm talking about. I readily admit that there is NO freedom without responsibility and I willfully accept the responsibility of operating a 5000 lb machine, just so many others, in addition to those who accept the responsibility of being on the road with other 5000 lb machines. With your train of thought virtually everything we can lead to some sort of calamity and therefore should be regulated by gov't. How is THAT freedom?

          • pseudolaw.com

            It's not freedom – it's a system that balances individual liberty with the greater societal good. If/when it fails or becomes too corrupt the people will be required to rise up and start a new system. Personally I don't think it's quite time for that yet in the west. There are many, many worse countries than the US are far as civil liberties are concerned.

          • http://ait.energygoldrush.com Dale W. Smith

            …and again that leads to the question I have about any other human being having authority over another human being…from where does such authority come? That another human's thoughts about my life and how I live it hold more weight than my own thoughts about the subject is absurd.

          • pseudolaw.com

            It's not another human, it's collective humanity, and its will is imposed by force through the institutions it supports. Every serial killer probably feels the same way as you. What gives anyone the right to jail a murderer? There are many social contract theories. What's your favorite?

          • http://ait.energygoldrush.com Dale W. Smith

            "It's not another human, it's collective humanity"

            If a single human doesn't have the authority to control another, why does a group of single humans?
            "Every serial killer probably feels the same way as you. What gives anyone the right to jail a murderer?"

            Come on…seriously? Taking things to the extreme is never helpful in a discussion, but just "for the record" (as you legal types like to say), we're talking about operating an automobile to and from work, from home to a relatives or the store, etc., none of which encroaches on the rights of anyone else. Murder is the ultimate encroachment, wouldn't you say? Hardly a good analogy.

          • pseudolaw.com

            The same legislature that dictates the traffic code dictates murder statutes, so it is relevant. When you argue that "no man should have power over any other man" that's the same as saying laws against murder should be optional, is it not? If you allow people to ignore the vehicle code they're just as entitled to ignore the murder code.

            If you don't like the state laws your remedy is to rally your friends, family, city, county, state to pressure your representatives in the state legislature to change the law in accordance with the state constitution. Or you could move to another state, or one of nearly 200 other countries that might have less vehicle regulations.

            You can imagine a situation that fits your personal ideal all you want, and fuss and complain in comments on blogs all over the internet, but reality is what it is. You can't enforce your law. The state can enforce theirs. Ergo, the state wins.

          • http://ait.energygoldrush.com Dale W. Smith

            "When you argue that "no man should have power over any other man" that's the same as saying laws against murder should be optional, is it not?"

            The answer to your question is YES…it is NOT. This goes back to the foundation of the country again and the origin of its laws. As is proper, all of this country's laws were derived from God's laws and were determined to be "common" laws, which were essentially based on the idea that personal freedom existed for all absent the encroachment of the personal rights of others.
            Again, MURDER, and other actions against another human beings don't fit that criteria.

            "You can't enforce your law. The state can enforce theirs. Ergo, the state wins."

            Yes, thanks to people like you, who refuse to stand up against government overreach and abuse. If the populace as a whole took a firm stand against the government tyranny that is growing ever prevalent, we could certainly and effectively hold them back.

          • pseudolaw.com

            So you do agree that men can and should have power over other men for certain things, like murder.

            Various natural law theories influenced the creation of the US, sure, but the supreme law of the land is the Constitution. Pursuant to the supremacy clause, the federal and state governments can make laws in accordance with their constitutions, as interpreted by the superior courts. There has never been a system of government that could not modify and update its law. So-called "God's law" is subjective and arbitrary – it has no place in an ordered society with predictable justice. The law of the land is the federal and state constitutions and legislation, first and foremost, with decisions of judges, common law, filling in where those are vague or silent.

            Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes once curiously opined:

            The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky but the articulate voice of some sovereign or quasi-sovereign that can be identified

            You find the requirement to renew a state driver's license every 5 years tyranny? You really don't know how good you have it. There were far less liberties in the past. It used to be that you could be required to get a license in every city you operated a vehicle in. It used to be that you would be chained up in the town square for days, or worse, if you pissed off the King or a local governor. Some would say the government just keeps getting better, less arbitrary, more reasonable. Some are spoiled, short-sighted, selfish, anti-social, ungrateful and entitled.

            Simply denouncing the system on blogs all over the internet doesn't do much to mitigate government overreach or abuse. To change state laws, you have to influence your fellow men and women in your state to put pressure on your representatives. I'm not in your state, so I can't really help you. Sovereignty in the US and States is held by the People as a collective – the will of the majority rules. There is no individual sovereignty in any society. So what percentage of people in your state are for abolishing the vehicle code? And what percentage of support is required by your state constitution to change the laws?

          • http://ait.energygoldrush.com Dale W. Smith

            "So you do agree that men can and should have power over other men for certain things, like murder"

            I agree that certain authorities have been delegated those who serve in a governmental capacity to deal legally with offences against humanity, such as murder.

            "So-called "God's law" is subjective and arbitrary – it has no place in an ordered society with predictable justice."

            Now THAT is just laughable. Omnipotent, Omniscient creator…"subjective and arbitrary"..unlike the created, fickle self serving humans, huh? LOLOLOL

            "LAWS" are only pertinent to those to whom they apply. If there is No proof that they apply, then they don't and nothing can go any further until such proof is provided.
            The reason that is case is because of exactly what is happening these days. People "assert" that laws apply to other people that then "assume they do as well" and then the former people can control the latter people. So, effectively anytime the former people want to acquire more power over the latter people all they have to do is write more laws.
            No thank you…I'd rather exercise and defend my own individual rights.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Now THAT is just laughable. Omnipotent, Omniscient creator…"subjective and arbitrary"..unlike the created, fickle self serving humans, huh? LOLOLOL

            If the omnipotent, omniscient creator was down here ruling directly, that'd be one thing. He's not, and religious laws have been notoriously inconsistent, intensely hostile to individual liberties, sadistically cruel, and otherwise unfit for a nation that prefers freedom to slavery. The application of religious law in the UK and its colonies was one of the driving causes behind the American Revolution, the rejection of a state religion, and representative government instead of a King supposedly justified in all actions by God.

            No thank you…I'd rather exercise and defend my own individual rights.

            What are you doing about it in the real world, anyway?

          • http://ait.energygoldrush.com Dale W. Smith

            "If the omnipotent, omniscient creator was down here ruling directly, that'd be one thing."

            He is. That's the very definition of omnipotent.

            "What are you doing about it in the real world, anyway?"

            Uhhh…like I said, defending my individual rights.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            He is. That's the very definition of omnipotent.

            Not omnipotent enough for the court to perceive him, but that's one of those things where zero proof will suffice as absolute proof and there's no point pursuing it.

            Uhhh…like I said, defending my individual rights.

            Can you be more specific? Are you practicing civil disobedience with licensing and registration? Writing letters to the editor? Testifying before legislative committees?

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            As is proper, all of this country's laws were derived from God's laws and were determined to be "common" laws, which were essentially based on the idea that personal freedom existed for all absent the encroachment of the personal rights of others.

            False. "Common law" refers to the English common law, which was invented in the 12th century by King Henry II to create a consistent, uniform judiciary and body of law throughout England. Specifically, it is the continuous line of precedent and rules formed by sovereigns and judges, displaced by statute, overturned by superior courts, executed by sheriffs, and otherwise forming the foundation of our legal system. It was not and is not intended to implement God's laws or natural laws or individual liberty. It was intended to implement the laws of King Henry II.

            Yes, thanks to people like you, who refuse to stand up against government overreach and abuse. If the populace as a whole took a firm stand against the government tyranny that is growing ever prevalent, we could certainly and effectively hold them back.

            I am not going to rise up against the government and risk my property, my career, my life, and my family over having to get a driver's license. I think it's a pretty good thing that we have traffic laws that prevent our roads from being a chaotic mess like in Yemen or Ghana. You have not made a sufficient argument for why I should actually, in reality, and not just on the internet, reject the legitimacy of a government I've found more helpful than harmful in my life. It's your job to convince us, not our job to bite a hook with no bait on it.

          • http://ait.energygoldrush.com Dale W. Smith

            "False. "Common law" refers to the English common law"

            …which is why I referred to it as "common" law, NOT "Common Law". You know, like ALL men being created by their creator (God) and such…? In this case you have a higher being from which the tenets of law over humans are derived. Not just another human or group of humans who somehow have elevated themselves to deity status.

            "I am not going to rise up against the government and risk my property, my career, my life, and my family over having to get a driver's license. "

            Fine. Nobody's asking you to. That's why you have patriots both past and present, willing to risk it all to stave off tyranny…and again I say, you can thank us later.

            "You have not made a sufficient argument for why I should actually, in reality, and not just on the internet, reject the legitimacy of a government I've found more helpful than harmful in my life. It's your job to convince us, not our job to bite a hook with no bait on it."

            AU CONTRAIRE! Not my job nor my desire to convince you of anything. If you are happy being enslaved, have at it! That's why I always say its about INDIVIDUAL rights and freedom. No one is required to be free, but don't try to include me and others who desire freedom into your group of those content with being the chattel of our government servants.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            …which is why I referred to it as "common" law, NOT "Common Law". You know, like ALL men being created by their creator (God) and such…? In this case you have a higher being from which the tenets of law over humans are derived. Not just another human or group of humans who somehow have elevated themselves to deity status.

            People who describe natural law as "common law" are being deceitful and dishonest. You are being dishonest. Period. Your sentence was plainly and obviously meant to confuse the actual common law system with your own opinions of natural law. You can try to backpedal, but your wording was clearly meant to conflate and confuse the two.

            Fine. Nobody's asking you to. That's why you have patriots both past and present, willing to risk it all to stave off tyranny…and again I say, you can thank us later.

            Thank you for what? Lying about the law, talking down to those who actually understand the theories and practices of law, and congratulating yourself for cleaving to simple delusions instead? You don't even understand what you're criticizing, so I know that you're not part of the solution to the problems that exist in law and government.

            AU CONTRAIRE! Not my job nor my desire to convince you of anything. If you are happy being enslaved, have at it! That's why I always say its about INDIVIDUAL rights and freedom. No one is required to be free, but don't try to include me and others who desire freedom into your group of those content with being the chattel of our government servants.

            You have an impractical view of freedom and slavery that is not consistent with the modern world. You can call me "chattel" if you like, but I unequivocally reject your intensely selfish and destructive view of what law should be. I am glad to have laws that protect the commons from people like you.

          • http://ait.energygoldrush.com Dale W. Smith

            "People who describe natural law as "common law" are being deceitful and dishonest. You are being dishonest. Period. Your sentence was plainly and obviously meant to confuse the actual common law system with your own opinions of natural law. You can try to backpedal, but your wording was clearly meant to conflate and confuse the two."

            Wow… 1st of all, if I had the desire to be "dishonest and deceitful", which I don't, it wouldn't be over this discussion. So, let me just say this right now…I'm sorry I used the words "common" and "law" in succession causing confusion on your part. It wasn't my intention. You are absolutely right on the origins of "Common Law.

            "Thank you for what? Lying about the law, talking down to those who actually understand the theories and practices of law, and congratulating yourself for cleaving to simple delusions instead?"

            Where did I "lie" about the law and why is that YOU are able to voice your opinion and I just counter with mine, but voicing my opinion is considered "talking down"?
            I just don't happen to believe that "LAWS" are not the end all, be all because they are instituted by other humans who through selfish desire, greed, arrogance, etc. tend to make "LAWS" that benefit themselves and those that are party to their ideology. You not only can choose to believe differently, but I will gladly stand beside you defending your right to do so.

            "You have an impractical view of freedom and slavery that is not consistent with the modern world. You can call me "chattel" if you like, but I unequivocally reject your intensely selfish and destructive view of what law should be."

            Freedom and slavery are the same whether in the Modern world or in past history. If you are able do what ever you please as long as it doesn't encroach on the rights of others to do the same, you're free. If you are not or have to ask permission from another human being, no different from yourself, you are NOT free and therefore a slave, at least to some degree.
            My fight is for maximum freedom and liberty for everyone that wants it, and yeah, that includes me, but i certainly don't how you can consider that selfish.

            "I am glad to have laws that protect the commons from people like you."

            ok

          • pseudolaw.com

            You do realize there is no physical force, i.e. military or police, on the planet that enforces your idea of "common law", correct? English law, both statutes and decisions of the courts, was imported by (most of) the States, subject to their constitutions and legislation. If your ideas aren't recognized in any court or by any power, what good are they? They don't mean anything outside your personal clubhouse unless you can enforce it. Call me skeptical but I doubt you can defeat the US military or State police. Ergo, you're stuck with their law just like everyone else.

          • http://ait.energygoldrush.com Dale W. Smith

            "Call me skeptical but I doubt you can defeat the US military or State police. Ergo, you're stuck with their law just like everyone else"

            Thank you for making my point. "LAWS" are only as good as the ones making them, so if the ones making the laws are evil, you end up with evil laws forced upon you at the barrel of a gun.

          • pseudolaw.com

            Yup, and if/when it gets too bad the people as a whole have to rise up militarily and start a new country, à la 1776. Until they're prepared to do that it's arguably best to participate, bad laws notwithstanding.

          • http://ait.energygoldrush.com Dale W. Smith

            Tyranny is progressive. If there is NO resistance at all, getting "too bad" will come sooner than we might expect.

          • pseudolaw.com

            There was resistance to driver's licenses and other regulations in the early 1900's, however regulation won out, as the article sources show. The people demanded more regulation for safety, and their representatives in the 50+ state legislatures saw to it that the laws were enacted. If you want to change the law, convince the majority of people in your state, then write your representatives. That's how democratic republics work.

          • http://ait.energygoldrush.com Dale W. Smith

            That only works if you have an informed populace, which is why there has been and still is a concerted effort to dumb down the public by indoctrination, obfuscation and lies. There is absolutely no other reason for the codes, statutes, laws to be written in the confusing manner they currently are. Aren't they written by intelligent people? Of course they are…intelligent enough to know exactly what the effect of their actions are.

          • pseudolaw.com

            What part of your state's constitution or vehicle code do you struggle to understand? Why don't you look to court decisions where judges have done all the interpretation for you? (Plus, their interpretation is binding). It's not that confusing when you understand how the law works. Sure, people could learn more about the intricacies of law, but they would have less time for other things. As one judge put it, people being ignorant of their rights is a luxury that shows the system works to provide a reasonable, stable society.

          • http://ait.energygoldrush.com Dale W. Smith

            "What part of your state's constitution or vehicle code do you struggle to understand?"

            None of it. I didn't say I didn't understand it.

            "As one judge put it, people being ignorant of their rights is a luxury that shows the system works to provide a reasonable, stable society."

            Uh huh…sure judge.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            The language and structure of statutes is designed to do a few things:

            1. To precisely express the intent of the legislature
            2. To either lay out or conform to established definitions of specific terms
            3. To be easily altered by amendment of specific sections, subsections, and paragraphs.

            They can be time-consuming to read and understand, but it's not a secret code, and it can be done with patience. The more you do it, the more easily you begin to recognize the patterns and vocabulary. After a while, you know exactly where to look for definitions, exceptions, related statutes, and more. You'll get a feel for when you're missing necessary information from elsewhere, when "includes" is inclusive or exclusive, the peculiarities of "may" and "shall," the significance of absent sections, and so on.

          • http://ait.energygoldrush.com Dale W. Smith

            "After a while, you know exactly where to look for definitions, exceptions, related statutes, and more. You'll get a feel for when you're missing necessary information from elsewhere, when "includes" is inclusive or exclusive, the peculiarities of "may" and "shall," the significance of absent sections, and so on."

            yep….piece of cake.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Well, it's a lot harder if you aren't actually interested in what they say. If you've already decided what a statute or opinion says or means before you read it, then you're never going to learn how to read them correctly. If you will not tolerate being surprised or disappointed, then you've decided in advance to ignore the source material. If you aren't willing to put your opinions about what the law should be to one side, you have no ability to learn what the law is.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            What, specifically, should we be resisting? I'm honestly interested in what particular portions of law you find so tyrannical. There are a few on my mind, but nothing so trivial and balanced as transportation laws. I'm not asking so I can lay into you, I'm just curious about the specifics.

          • http://ait.energygoldrush.com Dale W. Smith

            We should be resisting any attempt to diminish or encroach on our individual and fundamental rights.
            Laws are not meant to (or shouldn't be meant to) punish us for victimless "crimes" such as traveling at some speed that is in excess of an arbitrarily posted "speed limit"… or for going through a traffic light at 2am when there is no one else around, etc. etc, etc. It's just silly, and what's more, its main purpose has become the collection of revenue, not public safety.
            We should vigorously resist the financial ruin of our society by the misapplication of our tax codes on every individual who uses their talents and skills to provide for themselves and their families. Everyone should be furious about that.

          • pseudolaw.com

            The federal and state constitutions are the supreme laws. Where do these documents state that victimless crimes are not allowed to be legislated? Nowhere. You don't understand the system at all. And yeah, combined with improvements in driver culture and depending on road conditions speeding laws demonstrably save lives.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            I think Dale is more concerned with the philosophical ideals of justice in terms of individual liberty, not whether any particular laws are consistent with current practice. I'll let Dale speak for himself, but appeals to the mandatory jurisdiction of the state don't mean much to a person who considers the body of laws to be perverted regardless of its internal consistency and forceful execution.

          • pseudolaw.com

            Then he needs to get back on topic. This article is about the right to travel on the public roads in the existing US and States.

          • http://ait.energygoldrush.com Dale W. Smith

            If you guys are done talking about me I'll go ahead and comment now.

            Ken, frankly I'm not sure what heck you just said (now, I'm positive you're a lawyer,lol) but from what I could decipher, my answer is that I don't consider all laws to be perverted, I just reject the notion that because a law exists, it's assumed that it applies to everyone.

            pseudolaw, I'd like to remind you that WAS on topic. It was you two took us down thi rabbit hole, not me.

            Every human being has a fundamental right to travel, whether by horse, carriage or automobile. It is NOT a privilege given to us by government servants, it does not cease to exist with the creation of a law, and no law can convert that right into a crime. There are copious court cases, Supreme and higher courts alike that confirm that over and over again.

            Using the public highways for personal gain, through commercial, for hire activity (Driving) is a state regulable activity.

          • pseudolaw.com

            [Citation needed]

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Ken, frankly I'm not sure what heck you just said (now, I'm positive you're a lawyer,lol) but from what I could decipher, my answer is that I don't consider all laws to be perverted, I just reject the notion that
            because a law exists, it's assumed that it applies to everyone.

            I'm really not a lawyer! What I mean is that your position seems to be based on your beliefs about fundamental human rights, not statutes or interpretations of federal or state constitutions, so there's no point trying to convince you with references to statutes and case law. I think you're not concerned with what the state does by force, but with what you see as human rights that supersede the state. If I've understood you correctly, you maintain that some transportation laws unjustly violate the human right to travel, regardless of whether they're consistent with the federal and state constitutions.

          • http://ait.energygoldrush.com Dale W. Smith

            …and again we're back to the question, what FACTS do you have to PROVE that the federal and state constitutions apply to me?

          • pseudolaw.com

            The constitutions don't apply to you, per se. They limit the government's use of force against the people. People who break the law get penalized, fined and locked up. Fact. The government doesn't consider who consents or not. It doesn't have to, because it's the biggest dog in town.

          • http://ait.energygoldrush.com Dale W. Smith

            Without resistance and with the continuous application of half-truths, lies, word twisting, those limits are radically diminished. "Ordinary" who break the "law" are penalized, but those in power can operate outside the law with impunity.

            "The government doesn't consider who consents or not. It doesn't have to, because it's the biggest dog in town."

            The biggest reason YET to resist the usurpation of our rights.

          • pseudolaw.com

            Where do you think rights come from? They come at the pleasure of the greatest physical force on the territory, the government. Without government it's the law of the jungle where brute force always wins.

            Though government can be wicked at times, it is arguably a necessary evil. I like this commentary on 1 Peter 2:17:

            honour the king; Caesar, the Roman emperor, though a wicked, persecuting Nero, and so any other king or governor; who, so far as he acts the part of a civil magistrate, preserves the peace, the property, and liberty of his subjects, is a terror to evil works, and an encourager of good ones, and rules according to the laws of God, and civil society, is deserving of great honour and esteem from men; and which is to be shown by speaking well of him; by a cheerful subjection to him; by an observance of the laws, and by payment of tribute, and doing everything to make him easy, and honourable in his government

            Rulers, whether good and bad, oversee the laws of civil society, and in that role they should arguably always be considered valuable to the common man.

          • http://ait.energygoldrush.com Dale W. Smith

            You're kidding….RIGHT??? So you're an atheist? Well be that as it may, the Declaration of Independence doesn't even agree with you here. That's is the most important aspect of our Liberty and Freedoms in this country. They are viewed as "fundamental" because they are derived from a higher being, the CREATOR of all mankind. Just as the created human cannot rule or have power over its creator, neither can the created government rule over or have power over its creator, "the people".
            The Bible verse you quoted is within the context of a monarchy and even with that, look at the conditional statements…"so far as he acts the part of a civil magistrate, preserves the peace, the property, and liberty of his subjects, is a terror to evil works, and an encourager of good ones, and rules according to the laws of God, and civil society…" Those are pretty important qualifiers don't you think?
            Besides, in the context of the U.S.A., "WE THE PEOPLE" are Caesar.

          • pseudolaw.com

            The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The Declaration was only "enacted" in the preamble of the USC by Congress. You obviously haven't done your research. The courts enjoy the power of judicial review pursuant to Article 3 of the Constitution. Your individual YouTube-inspired, conspiracy-fueled interpretations mean nothing. Show me where a court has recognized the Declaration as having any legal effect. Show me where a court agrees with anything you say and we'll know whether you are talking out your ass about something unsupportable and unattainable in reality. This article is about the reality in the US and States, not your personal fantasies. Keep pushing uncited, unrecognized, unusable, unlawful crap and you can expect to be deleted or banned. In fact, I've heard enough and think I'll do that now. Cya

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            In the end, it boils down to force. If somebody violates your constitutional rights, you can haul them into court, and if they refuse to show up, they can be compelled by force. If you violate a constitutionally valid law, you can be hauled in by force. Enough people accept the federal and state constitutions as valid that this force is available.

          • http://ait.energygoldrush.com Dale W. Smith

            " If somebody violates your constitutional rights, you can haul them into court,"

            Yeah you can, even government, but with their unlimited resources (paid for by our tax dollars) and cast of supporting characters (attorneys, judges, politicians) it's extremely difficult to prevail…and they know that.

            "Enough people accept the federal and state constitutions as valid that this force is available"

            Enough for WHAT?? You see, here is where the difference between a democracy and a republic really matter. We (are supposed to) have republic where each individual's rights are not affected by the will of the majority, no matter how many are the majority.

            So, back to my question which you nor pseudolaw will not directly answer…
            what FACTS do you have to PROVE that the federal and state constitutions or ordinances and laws apply to me?
            Paramount to ANY legal application is the matter of jurisdiction. Without it there is no compulsion to comply with a law and therefore no possible violation. Without facts, empirical evidence to prove a law applies, it doesn't and nothing can proceed further along that path.

          • pseudolaw.com

            Are you sure you know what a republic is?

            A republic (from Latin: res publica) is a sovereign state or country which is organised with a form of government in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body

            State police can lawfully enforce state law against anyone and anything on commonly-recognized state territory. There is, at the moment, no court or military power on earth that will help you fight off the state police so you can ignore state law. Just being on the territory is enough for the government and its courts and police to assume jurisdiction in accordance with all historical and international law. Fact.

          • http://ait.energygoldrush.com Dale W. Smith

            "Are you sure you know what a republic is?

            A republic (from Latin: res publica) is a sovereign state or country which is organised with a form of government in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body"

            Although that definition applies to our form of government, what I meant and should have said is a "constitutional republic" which yes, gets its origin from the strict definition of "republic" but is in no way solely defined by it for the purposes of the government of the united States of America.

            "State police can lawfully enforce state law against anyone and anything on commonly-recognized state territory. There is, at the moment, no court or military power on earth that will help you fight off the state police so you can ignore state law."

            "lawfully"…state "law"… Do you read what you're typing? Claiming the "laws" apply because one is physically in a "state" is yet another assertion that requires facts to prove. Without them the assumption is and should always , be that they don't apply and therefore those with the duty and power to enforce them don't have jurisdiction.
            By the way, there are many beating traffic tickets and such TODAY with that very argument.
            FACT

          • pseudolaw.com

            No, it doesn't require your arbitrary definition of proof, as you'll find out if you try to act on any pseudolegal theories in real life. This will be you, in shock when your magic words fail to deter the police: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCozh_vbYdM And you won't be able to win damages when the state enforces its law that hasn't been struck down by a superior court.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Yeah you can, even government, but with their unlimited resources (paid for by our tax dollars) and cast of supporting characters (attorneys, judges, politicians) it's extremely difficult to prevail…and they know that.

            Plaintiffs routinely win civil rights lawsuits against governments and have charges thrown out because of unconstitutional government conduct. This is something that happens on a day to day basis. Police departments lose lawsuits, school districts lose lawsuits, state governments lose lawsuits, and federal agencies lose lawsuits. Defendants are acquitted every day. Law enforcement officers back off all the time because (most of) them know the law (usually) applies to them. You're implying that the government is above the law in practice, but this is demonstrably false.

            Enough for WHAT?? You see, here is where the difference between a democracy and a republic really matter. We (are supposed to) have republic where each individual's rights are not affected by the will of the majority, no matter how many are the majority.

            Enough that if you break the law, it is a fact that you can be seized, prosecuted, and punished against your will and without your permission, subject to the state and federal constitutions. Enough that, as a practical matter, the federal and state constitutions have physical force instead of simply existing on paper. Enough that whether you accept their applicability is completely irrelevant unless you contribute to concrete acts that prevent the police, courts, and prisons from functioning.

            So, back to my question which you nor pseudolaw will not directly answer…
            what FACTS do you have to PROVE that the federal and state constitutions or ordinances and laws apply to me?

            Guns, tasers, fists, handcuffs, and bars. Those are the facts. "Oh, tyranny! Tyranny!" Yeah, OK, sure, but your philosophical objections don't stop bullets, resist voltage, block punches, or break steel.

            Paramount to ANY legal application is the matter of jurisdiction. Without it there is no compulsion to comply with a law and therefore no possible violation. Without facts, empirical evidence to prove a law applies, it doesn't and nothing can proceed further along that path.

            Then don't comply. Have fun. Jurisdiction isn't a physical quantity that can be measured, so I can't tell you that rural Illinois averages out to 108.3 millimadisons of jurisdiction. It's pretty tough to change the law by just ignoring it, but there's no force of nature to stop you from trying. I prefer legislation and lawsuits for now.

            P.S. Ultimately, everybody who obeys the law upholds its applicability. You may not realize it, but you, individually, play a part in upholding the body of statutes and precedent when you pay attention to the lane markings, when you file your taxes, when you don't trespass, or when you pay to use a subway. Your compliance with the vast majority of the law contributes to its general applicability.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            OK, let's look back at the original line about common law:

            As is proper, all of this country's laws were derived from God's laws and were determined to be "common" laws, which were essentially based on the idea that personal freedom existed for all absent the encroachment of the personal rights of others.

            None of this is true.

            This country's laws were not derived from God's laws. They were derived from the statutes and common law inherited from the colonial period, with the introduction of new republican ideas.

            These laws were not determined to be "common" laws. The use of that term has no purpose other than to confuse readers who are aware that the United States operate under the common law legal system, but don't have a clear understanding of what that means.

            Neither the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. Constitution, nor state laws, nor the English common law revolve around the kind of absolute personal liberty you describe. That's a red herring.

          • http://ait.energygoldrush.com Dale W. Smith

            "OK, let's look back at the original line about common law:"

            You're kidding!!! Let's NOT and say we did. You guys are really stuck on this "common law" theme. I already explained what I meant AND I apologized for even using the words! I'm done with that…we're getting off topic.

            "This country's laws were not derived from God's laws."

            False. Most obviously, the Ten Commandments was a major influence on the formulation of this country, its morals and subsequently its laws.

            "Neither the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. Constitution, nor state laws, nor the English common law revolve around the kind of absolute personal liberty you describe."

            Nonsense. What do you think they meant by…"endowed by their creator with certain UNALIENABLE rights, AMONG WHICH are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness"?
            Paraphrased that would be the right to do anything one pleases as long as it doesn't deny another the right to the same.

            Bottom line Ken, it has been well documented that a state's authority to regulate "Transportation" only extends to the use of the (OUR) roads for commercial gain. The only reason it has gotten so out of hand is because the natural reaction to power by humans is gain more and more of it. That's precisely why our rights were pointed out in the founding documents and why those who seek to impose tyranny on us make sure the populace doesn't understand those documents nor the statutes they create, by making them so convoluted and complex.
            You may feel comfortable with the status quo. I don't and I cannot sit by idly and do absolutely nothing while my rights and the rights of my fellow Americans are being trampled.

        • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

          Slavish obedience is harmful and stupid. Knowledge of the current law and reality is essential. I fight for the laws I want because my eyes are open and I can see that I have to win before I can declare victory. I want just laws in a representative government, not hippy-dippy anarchist dreams.

          • http://ait.energygoldrush.com Dale W. Smith

            "Slavish obedience is harmful and stupid."
            Amen to that!
            "I want just laws in a representative government"
            You notice that most of the original laws were focused mainly on restricting the activities of the government? It wasn't until later that they began to be directed at the populace, all in an effort to bolster power. That's exactly why your current president doesn't like our constitution.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            I'm not sure what you mean by "original laws," to be honest. State laws were in force alongside the first Acts of Congress, and colonial laws preceded the states. The common law preceded any acts of a colonial legislature or governor, and the English monarchy preceded the common law.

          • http://ait.energygoldrush.com Dale W. Smith

            Obviously I'm talking about the Law of the land the constitution.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            In that case, the U.S. Constitution was actually written to increase the power of the federal government. A lot of protections were added on after ratification, but the focus was on resolving the dysfunction of the weak Articles of Confederation. The federal government was granted much broader powers over interstate matters and taxation, but that's not really related to driver licensing and motor vehicle registration. That's a state issue, and state constitutions have granted broad police powers since before the American Revolution. Have you looked at the kinds of laws that were passed in the colonies and early United States?

      • Tracy Chastain

        If you buy a car with cash…the govt is the executor of your property that is if you have a title in your name declaring it as a vehicle!!! Registration will show probability, drivers license etc.. probability. Municipal courts use that as evidence to validate it is in fact a vehicle subject to vehicle traffic code.

        • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

          These are silly assertions with no basis whatsoever in fact. They're the product of desperate minds demanding exemption from reality.

        • https://disqus.com/home/channel/provaxvsantivaxadebate/ On Its Own Merits

          Protip: Before asserting a truth…make sure it's not just an opinion you desperately want to be true.

      • Michael Hall

        I think your both misleading yourselves by the words. See regulation replace it with right see drive replace with travel see the rest and make it common rights like right to travel set forth by both sides of jurisdictions own definitions within financial bounds to punishment by death. No commerce no harm no crime, common law and ucc into federal.. Blah… Seriously. Consumer goods ucc 9-109. mass says they offer private passenger plates to drivers. Keyword drivers. Still a registration scam to give police assumption you may sometimes (as I take it) be involved in commerce.. Dig that.

        That private passenger registration puts you into driver status just by registration keyword alone. No registration per ucc associated maritime aka international..

    • Dustin k

      ThAnk you………. I have been robbed so much by police and Tow yards and my license is suspended I am going to court for this stupid issue of getting behind a wheel and I'm tired of it I've even gone to jail for it

  • Bob

    Sorry but you do NOT need a License or tags or insurance. Read Marbury v Madison, then read Murdock v Pennsylvania, No State can issue a License or Fee for that,and Shuttlesworth v Alabama ,says if they do issue you a license and a Fee,you can ignore the license and the fee,a with out impunity,meaning they cannot punish you for it. People need to read the US Constitution, and there are other Supreme Court Cases to back this up. Shapiro v Thompson. also Google Charlie Sprinkles. and go to YouTube,and watch CARL Millers Videos, he is a Constitutional Las Expert.

  • glimpcy63

    This article is very misleading. U.S. codes regulate all states.18 U.S. Code § 31(10). tells exactly what the states can regulate. And U.S. code 49 also regulates state dmv. once anybody argues state statues you fell in the trap

    • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

      18 UC § 31(a?)(10) does not specify what the states can regulate. It is the definitions section of a U.S. code chapter on transportation-related federal crimes. The definitions contained in 18 U.S. Code § 31 only apply in Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Title 18. There's nothing in this section that restricts the police power of the states to regulate private operators of self-propelled vehicles on roads.

      49 USC is simply the federal transportation law title. It defines federal law, but does not restrict the police power of the states to regulate private operators of self-propelled vehicles on roads. Nothing in this title prohibits the mandatory licensing of private operators of self-propelled vehicles on roads, nor the registration of self-propelled vehicles operated on roads.

      The existence of federal law embracing a general subject does not invalidate state law embracing the same general subject. The reason there is no federal law about private driver licensing or private vehicle registration is that Congress lacks the constitutional authority to interfere with the internal police power of the states. Only the states have the constitutional authority to regulate private drivers and vehicles within a state, so these laws are created on valid state authority, not federal authority.

  • Steven Goodridge

    Fifteen years ago I researched and wrote about a related topic – "the right to travel by human power". Walking and bicycling are frequently attacked by governments and individuals who want to clear the roadways of slow traffic in order to speed the pace of motoring, but many or most roads lack the provision of alternate infrastructure to facilitate the nonmotorized modes. I was particularly interested in those court opinions that, in the process of supporting driver's license laws, identified walking and bicycling as usable alternatives to motoring. My thesis was that non-motorized travel would or should be more difficult for the government to restrict or ban, particularly in terms of preventing equivalent access to local destinations, because doing so would eliminate the most affordable and universally accessible means of locomotion. The travel rights of non-motorized users seem to be better established over the past 2000+ years of traffic law, dating back at least to the Roman Servitus Iter. Do you have any suggestions of where else to look for legal support for the right to travel under human power in the US? I'm not a lawyer but I think it's important for people to try to understand these principles.

  • Gods Creation

    While both sides of the argument are well represented here, it really comes down to the one thing NOT mentioned here.

    pseudolaw is of the belief that the government corporation is sovereign. In America, the sovereignty lies with the people, individually and collectively. We are each Kings without subjects, in the law.

    The other side of the argument has not stated the issue of legitimacy, and the capacity in which the corp govs operate.

    Both sides bring up the constitution and laws to support their claim, but neither side looks at the SOURCE of sovereignty. That is the critical piece of information missing from the discussion.

    All government sovereignty is derived from the People, who have given a limited amount of sovereignty to governments who form under the constitutions. The fact is, there are no governments, state or federal, formed under the constitutions in existence today.

    The basic standard to which government should be held is that it can not do anything, that any single man can not do. If I can not do it, the neither can the government.

    If I can not force my neighbor to register his property with me, the government can not force me to register my property with it.

    It comes down to the use of force, and that forced is only ever legitimately used in the protection of private property as evidenced that my only lawful use of force is to protect my own property.

    The fact is, ALL governments are corporations. That is confirmed by the Supreme Court, when it was a Lawful court. It has also been stated by the SC that when governments use commercial paper that they do so in a private character as opposed to a government of Lawful authority.

    Because of the use of Federal Reserve Notes, there are no legitimate state governments in existence. They act as private corporations using privately issued debt as currency. Because of that fact, they are restricted only by the Uniform Commercial Code.

    ALL statute law put out by these corporations is PRIVATE LAW, only applicable to those within the corporation. The fraud of the drivers license is intended to do nothing other than subject the unwitting victim to the private jurisdiction of the corporation issuing the "license", while it is pretending to operate as a Lawful government under the constitutions.

    It is a question of form of government. In the Republics created by the constitutions, all rights not specifically delegated to the government are by nature meant to be unregulated. In the private corporations acting as government, all rights are considered privileges which are to be regulated.

    The drivers license creates a corporate citizen who functions under the private law of the issuer, as a privileged entity.

    What we have is a private corporation pretending to be the government of a constitutional republic formed under the constitutions. Those who are willingly a member of the private corporations and those who would choose the constitutional republic will never agree on what law is.

    The problem is, there is no protection for the rights of those wishing to reside in the long dead republic. And as to the protection offered to those in the corporation, which has no Lawful or moral authority to act against those who refuse membership to it, it is an illusion as the corporation will always protect itself from it's involuntary officers who hold it license out of fear.

    Is it lawful to "drive" without a "license". In a word, yes. However, there are no protections from the private interest for those who choose to exercise rights over privileges.

    • pseudolaw.com

      There is no such thing as being "individually-sovereign" in any fair and just society – they all have rules everyone must follow. In the US, the will of the people can only be enforced collectively. State legislatures have enacted highway codes and it is therefore not lawful to travel by a self-propelled device (see your state's definitions) on the public highways without following those codes. How would it be fair or lawful under any law to use the products of a society, exploiting the labour and taxation of its members, without any of the duties? These creations, and everyone availing themselves of the benefit, are subject to their creator. Consider the legal maxim he who enjoys the benefit ought to bear the burden. If you want out, if you really want out, stop being dependent and go make your own clothes, electricity, transportation, computers, internet, then negotiate with the rest of the world to gain some sort of recognition as a sovereign state under public international law.

      • Gods Creation

        pseudolaw, In the United States of America, the People ARE the sovereigns. Individually AND collectively. There are only two choices. You are a sovereign, or a subject. A free Man is sovereign, a slave is a subject. There is no middle ground here. You must be one or you become the other.

        So long as you view the government as possessing sovereignty separate from and superior to that of the People of America, instead of the government deriving LIMITED authority and sovereignty from the consent of the governed, you are discussing the entire subject in direct opposition to the ideals and Law upon which the country was founded and still purports to operate under (though we know that is not the case).

        ALL government in America was formed for the stated purpose of protecting the rights and property of the People. It's also has a responsibility to control it's officers, employees, and corporations through statute law and commercial regulations, the purpose of which is to keep those entities from trespass against the rights and property of the People.

        The People are not subjects of the government, or it's statute law. They are the sovereignty. They are the author and source of the Law (the constitutions) which restricts government powers and actions. So long as no harm is done to the rights or property of another man, there is no violation of Law. Legitimate government force begins when someones rights or property has been violated.

        A state is formed by the people that inhabit the land. A corporation is not, and can not become, a state.

        In the current state of affairs, the state legislatures (State of ______") are privately funded departments of the United States government. Their codes are copyrighted (see your states codes) private law. They engage in private commerce with debt currency, and are not related to the constitutions in ANY way. They exist in a fraud, which gains no rights for it nor takes any from me.

        You have accepted that you are a subject and creation of the government, thus brainwashing apparently works fully and deeply. You have decided for yourself that you are NOT free, and have no right to expect liberty or it's responsibilities. Many people do not agree with you because that is where you are coming from.

        You are free to accept slavery as your life condition, but not free to force your slave condition on others.

        As I stated, the only problem with being free in America is that there are no Lawful governments in existence to protect the free people from commercial crimes being perpetrated by the corporate "government". They have been hijacked by private commercial interests, as evidenced by what they use for money.

        Just because you, as a slave, feel a requirement to gain a license for the exercise of natural rights, doesn't place that requirement on everyone else.

        I do not need recognition of my status by any corporation ( or international law written by other corporations). As a Man, created by God, my status is apparent simply by pricking my skin and watching it bleed. My rights, inherent in ALL men, were in existence long before these corporations formed to violate them.

        All valid law is against the commission of certain acts (thou shall not murder, thou shall not commit adultery). All law that requires an action on your part is invalid, unless you first agree to abide by it (consent), which requires a contract.

        The simple act of obtaining a drivers license is what gives force to the rest of the Motor Vehicle codes. The penalty for failure is revocation of the license, and the theft of debt currency.

        If you want to discuss public safety, a legitimate state would issue drivers competency certificates. As for speed limits and stop signs and red lights, these are required for public safety and ought to be followed. To ensure that, a full disclosure contract should be entered before issuing the certificates.

        If you are following the rules of the road, but have no license plate or drivers license or insurance (a maritime contract so says the Supreme Court, by the way, placing you and your car in Admiralty jurisdiction (compelled performance)), then there is no crime being committed.

        Alas, it is not about public safety. It is about revenue generation through the enforcement of commercial law against the free People, without consent, for the profit of the financiers who furnish the debt.

        Enjoy your world of slavery. You may even believe you are free, if you so choose. but don;t try to tell me or anyone else that I have to be a slave just because you choose to be.

        Freedom and liberty come with responsibilities. Those responsibilities do not include obtaining a license for ANY purpose. I will accept my rights from God. Meanwhile you can continue to petition corporations for your right to exist.

        • pseudolaw.com

          There is no duality at law where some magical higher power overrides the US, the States and their statutes and swoops in to militarily defend your personal imaginary rights. The US, States, and Congress and the Laws they make (Article 1) are the supreme law of the land (Article 6, 2). Your personal interpretation of what that and other lawful things mean doesn't matter much to them. Their courts hold the exclusive power of judicial interpretation and review (Article 3 & State Constitutions). "Natural law", i.e. law above the nation-state, theories are sometimes mentioned as inspiration but are not seen to bind the US, which is clearly a constitutionally-limited, representative, democratic, republic. As the current world-order stands, the nation-state is the highest law on earth. Therefore if you want to understand the actual, enforceable law, read the Constitution(s), legislation and decisions of the courts.

          What does the beast, aka the great whore, Egypt or Caesar have to do with God? "No man is justified by the law in the sight of God." Read Galatians and stop clinging to false idols. God's kingdom is "not of this world." It's not lawful, a creation of men. "If righteousness come by the law, Christ is dead in vain." God's kingdom does not necessarily involve the ability to wield legal superiority over whoever and whatever one wishes.. God's kingdom is in fact a renunciation of such things.

          • Gods Creation

            The gist of what I get from your replies is that you honestly believe the Constitution is still in effect and regarded as Law by the corporate governments. That is simply not true. They are commercial entities, not contemplated in the constitutions.

            All crimes are commercial (CFR 27 SECTION 72.11), and all commercial law is only enforceable against entities engaged in commerce, or through fraud against the people when they are presumed by unlawful commercial courts to be acting in commerce without being told such.

            Our differences are a matter of perspective. You assume that the corporations acting as government are doing so in accordance with the Constitutions and are acting legitimately.

            I understand that they are acting in a private commercial character, self evident by what they use for money, and function as a pure mob rule democracy that claims ownership of all things (including People) in obvious violation of the Constitutions. The institutions and appearance of the Republic have been maintained to hide the reality of what these so-called governments really are.

            You will continue to believe the government is legitimate so long as they continue the charade and tell you they are. They will do so only as long as they profit from the deception.

            You, and the vast majority of others, have willingly given up your liberties to be a part of these monsters. Once the illusion of freedom and the rule of law is removed, perhaps you will be more open to the ideas of those of us who see through the illusion and refuse to surrender our liberties to a fictional entity that exists solely for it's own profits at the expense of the People rather than for their benefit.

            By standing in defense of these commercial criminals, you are doing yourself and everyone else a huge disservice. I know that is not your intent, but people should be told the truth of what these corporate monsters are rather than try to convince them that they must submit to illegitimate authority.

            We are each right from our own perspective. The question to ask is, which perspective is right? The answer depends on if you want to be free as God intended, or are content with (corrupted) man as your current masters.

            I will choose freedom as God intended for me. I can not nor do I desire to make your choice for you, nor to force my choice on you.

          • pseudolaw.com

            There is only one hand-written constitution you can view online that cannot be ignored and is regularly interpreted by the courts to this day. You can read the public records for yourself. If you don't think the constitutional congress, courts, etc. exist your only option is military overthrow. Anything less is simply begging from those who purportedly enslave you.

            Read the federal CFR definition page you quoted carefully… particularly the top, i.e. As used in this part… The definition only applies to charges brought under that Part. Furthermore, just because certain crimes are considered commercial crimes for one small part of federal law does not make them inherently commercial in any manner. It is in fact saying that those types of crimes, when applied to anyone, are considered commercial, for that Part. Why do this? As we see at https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/part-72, the intent of the Part is to federally regulate the disposition of seized personal property. So it was probably done because disposition of seized assets works the same for commercial and non-commercial crimes, and they didn't want any questions arising about a difference. We can check the public court decisions that interpret the section to be sure. Further as we read in 72.1 the scope of application of the Part is "personal property and carriers seized by alcohol, tobacco and firearms officers as subject to forfeiture as being involved, used, or intended to be used, as the case may be, in any violation of Federal laws." So what does that have to do with, say, the violation of a highway statute enacted by a State legislature where no seizure of property is involved? Nothing.

            Anyway, why quote CFR like it matters if you believe the Congress that made it is corrupt?

            I am not standing in defense of anything except how the law actually works.

          • Gods Creation

            """I am not standing in defense of anything except how the law actually works."""

            Exactly my point. I agree that the law works just as you say. The difference is that you believe it is all done according the constitution and I disagree with that assumption.

            There is no longer a constitutional form of government in this country.

            The Constitution makes it very clear that no state shall use any thing but gold or silver as money. The purpose was to keep control of the money, and thus the government itself, in the hands of the people. Banks can not produce gold or silver, thus under such constraints their power was limited. Unfortunately, not limited to the point they could not corrupt the political process.

            That changed in 1913. Private banks wrote themselves several laws. The Federal Reserve Act gave the private bankers control over the money and a license to counterfeit. Add to that the 16th Amendment, which gave the perception (incorrectly) that a tax on income was permissible, and the 17th Amendment which created a democracy where the republic once stood by removing the state legislatures representation in the federal government.

            So you are correct in that the law currently works the way you say. It is run under the Law Merchant system (required of commercial paper), and enforced in Admiralty courts of compelled performance, against the people who were pledged as collateral to the US corps debt, without consent or knowledge of the people.

            You are incorrect in asserting the Constitution plays any part in any government currently in existence in this country.

            Finally, in 1968, the remaining money (silver) was removed from circulation, leaving the states with no lawful money to conduct their constitutional business. They were forced to resort to becoming federal "states", as evidenced by each having their own federal tax ID number. Every state government agency, including courts, have them. They are merely federal corporations, owned by the creditors of the United States Government, and exist for no reason other than enforcing the federal bankruptcy.

            Of course, all of that information just scratches the surface of what has been allowed to happen. By reading the Congressional records of 1933, you will find that is when the United States, under the control of the bankers, declared the Citizens of the several states as enemies.

            You are absolutely correct in your belief that the courts will enforce federal and state laws, however they do not do so in conformity with the constitution. Nor are laws passed in accordance with the constitution. Witness Obamacare for a recent example, and the absurd ruling of the SC calling it a tax when that question was not even raised.

            The institutions of the Republic are still in place to keep the charade going and the people confused, but the functions have been compromised by the same cabal of bankers that controls and creates the debt currency currently in use.

            You, and most others including myself, grew up with an unlawful government posing as a legitimate constitutional body. It has now devolved into a police state, where any government can do anything it wants to anyone, without restraints from the constitution.

          • pseudolaw.com

            In fact I agree that not all government acts in accordance with the constitution. However it is not up to the individual to interpret what is or isn't constitutional – it's up to the courts, pursuant to Article III. The way the system works and evolves is this: 1) Potentially bad laws are enacted. 2) The law is enforced, people are allegedly harmed and thereby gain standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law. 3) If the courts agree that a fundamental or superior right has been breached the law is struck down, sent back to the legislature for them to rewrite and reenact and try again. — It is up to the people as individuals to bring constitutional challenges when they are harmed by potentially unconstitutional laws. Until such time as a proper challenge is brought and sustained the dictations of the legislature are considered for all intents and purposes to be actual, valid law.

            If you're interested in how it was found to be lawful for the US to use paper money, see the Legal Tender Cases.

            The Federal Reserve Act, being an Act of Congress, that can be repealed or amended at any time by that same Congress, is and always will be subject to Congress. Board members are selected by the President, shareholders are regional not foreign banks, most of the profits from the Fed are returned to the federal treasury. You can verify the votes of hundreds of members of Congress yourself, and read the comments and debates in newspaper archives – there was no secret enactment at Jekyll Island.

            Can you show me where the courts agree with your interpretation of the 16th and 17th amendments? Of course, pursuant to Article V Congress and/or the States are allowed to amend the Constitution at any point and it becomes the supreme law of the land. The US was designed to evolve to meet the ever-changing needs of society.

            The US began as and is still a constitutionally-limited, representative, democratic, republic.

          • Chase Marcotte

            Wow, why are you arguing with idiots? Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. The quran says something i try to keep in mind right when i have the urge to engage with belligerently ignorant idiots.mm i do not believe what you believe and you do not believe what i believe so i will go my way and you, your's

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Governments and agencies have tax ID numbers and D&B numbers and credit ratings for a very simple and benign reason: they are corporations that need to be able to lend, borrow, contract, sue, be sued, and otherwise exist as entities that can receive and spend money. This is also why foreign governments are in the EDGAR database, not because they are "U.S. corporations." To start off, corporate does not mean the same thing as commercial. The fact that governments are incorporated does not mean that they are commercial entities, that they operate under secret rules, that they are run by Reptilian executives trading it on the intergalactic stock exchange (clearly orchestrated by the Space Jews), that the collateral is people, or that you've discovered some ghastly secret they're trying to conceal from the world. Governments are incorporated. They're corporations. Bingo A-1 Yuppers, they're corporations, and that beats the hell out of the alternative. In the context of the English language and our understanding of entities in law for the last few centuries, almost any kind of government you can imagine must be a corporation. Here's why:

            A state (with the exception of horrifying monarchies where the entire state is the personal property of an individual) is not a natural person. It has no parents, it has no signature, it has no body. The world can be a harsh place if you don't have a body. You can't walk into a bank and open an account, you can't walk into a courthouse to sue or be sued, you can't discuss the terms of a contract and agree to it, you can't do much of anything. Bodies are important things. The word "incorporation" is related to these crucial bodies, through the Latin word "corpus," which simply means body. The term incorporation refers to the creation of a legal entity without a body. By "incorporating," we all agree to give it a fictional body and to accept its ability to exist in law through representatives and agents. For the federal and state governments of the United States, this incorporation was performed with the adoption of constitutions. These constitutions don't mention the word "corporation" or "incorporate," because they don't need to. It's simply a consequence of creating a government that 1) is not synonymous with an individual and 2) exists as a legal entity. It's very important for governments to be legal entities, because otherwise it would be impossible for them to sue or be sued, it would be impossible for them to have accounts and pay into or out of them, it would be impossible for them to employ agents and officers to administer the business of government, and it would be impossible for them to enter contracts.

            This winds up giving you three choices. Which of the following do you prefer?

            1. A government that doesn't exist in law

            2. A government run as a sole proprietorship where taxes are paid directly to the head of state's personal bank account

            3. A government run as a corporation

            (Hi from East Africa, by the way!)

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Title 18 INTERNET LAW
            Section 020 Redundant posting
            Prohibited:
            a) redundant posting

        • Iva Sue McCoy

          agree

  • Weyman Cochran

    I'll try to believe your BS if you can get by this ..
    Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 U.S. 363-371 (1942)
    What the Clearfield Doctrine is saying is that when private
    commercial paper is used by corporate government, then
    Government loses its sovereignty status and becomes no
    different than a mere private corporation.

    As such, government then becomes bound by the rules and
    laws that govern private corporations which means that if they
    intend to compel an individual to some specific performance
    based upon its corporate statutes or corporation rules, then
    the government, like any private corporation, must be the holder-
    in-due-course of a contract or other commercial agreement
    between it and the one upon whom demands for specific
    performance are made.

    And further, the government must be willing to enter the contract
    or commercial agreement into evidence before trying to get to
    the court to enforce its demands, called statutes. … I do not have any contract or agreement with any state … I travel in my Teflon coated Kevlar flesh and blood bag of bones .. You should try it , if you have the balls .

    • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

      You're taking a specific statement and trying to make it general. Nowhere in that opinion do they state that the United States government "loses its sovereignty status" when it uses commercial paper. What it says is that when the U.S. federal government is doing business, it can't ignore the rules of commercial law that maintain equity and stability. Nothing about that fact prejudices the sovereign nature of the United States government. Justice Douglas lays this out fairly explicitly with the line: "When the United States disburses its funds or pays its debts, it is exercising a constitutional function or power." Put another way, that means that when the federal government is engaging in financial activity, it is still doing so as a sovereign government. The decision to make the federal government accountable to consistent commercial law does not degrade its authority in other matters — it merely prevents it from abusing its sovereignty to gain short-term victories against creditors and debtors at the expense of long-term stability and trust. When the federal government owes you money, it is obligated to pay you. The alternative would be devastating.

      Now, seeing that the federal government has to obey commercial law when it is doing business, doesn't that mean that it's merely a business like any other, with no claim to sovereignty or any authority over the people who live in the USA? Nope. This rule does not extend to any other context than business law where the federal government is party to a dispute. It does not invalidate the lawmaking authority of the Congress, the judicial authority of the courts, the executive power of the President, the status of the Constitution as its final and highest source of law, or its nature as a sovereign government. More importantly, it has overwhelming recognition by the people as a legitimate government, and lots of force behind its laws.

      EDIT: Oh, I missed a whole different aspect to this. This case is about the federal government anyway, not state governments. The federal government doesn't issue or require licenses or registration for private drivers or vehicles. The individual states do, and this case has nothing to say about them besides expressing concern that it would be dangerous to apply 48 sets of state commercial laws to suits with the federal government.

  • Free Man

    While this has been put together well it is not correct but dont take my word on it like the writer of this artical said "think for your self" do the leg work and you will see that there is a lot of word play at hand here and the referances used to debunk the Right to Travel are out dated as well

    • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

      Any examples? If you're talking about "wordplay," I can't help but suspect that you're thinking about privately-published descriptive dictionaries published more than a century ago. Black's and Bouvier's update to follow the changing courts, not the other way around. Well, Black's does, anyway. I don't think Bouvier's has been updated for a century, but I could be wrong.

    • pseudolaw.com

      The judicial power of the US is ultimately vested in one Supreme Court pursuant to Article III of the federal Constitution. I have presented 3 decisions that clarify the right of States to reasonably and fairly regulate the highways for public safety. You can't "debunk" the Supreme Court – as the highest judicial power within the sovereign nation-state known as the US it dictates to you what the law is, unless and until you gain enough support to influence your representatives in Congress to repeal, amend or enact new legislation that the courts can't ignore. But the federal government, so far, doesn't seem to want to regulate highways, and has left it up to the individual States. So your battle is with the States, and your challenge is to gain the support of your friends, family, city, county, state and influence your representatives in the State legislature to change the law. At this point, since the early 1900's as outlined in the article, I'm not sure unlicensed driving is desirable to many voters… but if you convince enough people you may get your wish in one or more States in time.

  • UCC 1-207, UCC 1-103

    Seems that this article is confusing Common Law with Commercial Law. Traveling is not the same as Driving. Traveling is a Common Law term. Driving is a commercial term. Same with automobile and motor vehicle. Automobile is a Common Law term. Motor vehicle is a commercial term. If you are not in commerce not for hire you are in Common Law. You do not require a drivers licence, insurance or registration. If you are in commerce for hire you are in Commercial Law (Uniform Commercial Code Act). You do require a drivers licence, insurance and registration. The so called drivers licence you have is a class D licence. The class D licence is a noncommercial licence. If you are not in commerce you do not need a licence. This is proof of fraud against the People by criminalizing a Right, the Right to Travel.

    • pseudolaw.com

      1. Common law was received by the individual State governments (former colonies) via reception statutes, clearly subject to the local State constitutions and legislatures (the same legislatures that make the highway codes). 2. State legislation, such as the highway code, made by democratically-elected-and-influenced representatives of the people, is in fact the law of the land and unable to be avoided. 3. The federal Constitution, laws and courts offer no protection for your imagined right to travel unregulated, as clearly shown in this article, which shows the Supreme Court saying residents and non-residents, commercial and non-commercial activity on the highways may be regulated by the States for public safety.

      • Justin Peniche

        "residents and non-residents, commercial and non-commercial activity on highways may be regulated by the States for public safety."
        This is so open to interpretation. Activity on highways may be regulated tells me that law enforcement may patrol highways to ensure the safety of all drivers. This doesn't mean to me that they can dictate who may or may not drive. I don't think anyone is contesting that there are inherent safety issues associated with driving and that regulating speeds and what not is necessary to maintain public safety but to require licensing is a whole other animal. For instance the government can tell me what I can and can't do with a gun but they can't tell me I can't have one.

        • pseudolaw.com

          As the Supreme Court says in Reitz v Mealey, "The universal practice is to register ownership of automobiles and to license their drivers." And as we read in the linked The Orphaned Right: The Right to Travel By Automobile, "No court after 1920 found the right to travel sufficient to strike down a driver license requirement." As I see it, there is, as of yet, nothing unconstitutional about State license requirements, and in my opinion no such challenge is sustainable. You're welcome to try to appeal, though. All you need is a "driving without a license" charge to gain standing. It might be better, or the only way, to simply convince your friends, family, county, state to pressure your representatives in the State legislature to change the highway laws, reversing what was debated and settled in the early 1900's democratically.

    • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

      Where are you getting this notion that "drive" is exclusively a commercial term? State courts (you know, the ones that write the common law) have upheld state laws defining private operators of self-propelled vehicles as drivers for about a century now. There is no common law escape hatch to crawl out of, because the common law recognizes the validity and authority of the licensing and registration statutes. Under common law, the statutes apply. Common law is not an alternative to statute law, and statute law is not commercial.

  • Justin Peniche

    It's difficult to interpret the intentions of people with lesser technology more than 200 years ago and the practical application of what should be considered common law now. Back in those days carrying a license to ride a horse would have been absolute blasphemy but the argument that a motor vehicle is a potentially hazardous machine and warrants regulation has merit. That said you have to consider the alternative. I live in San Diego, CA which is not known for having convenient mass transit. The county is spread out like any major city so taking the bus is generally inconvenient and the trolley system is also very limited. Therefore driving is an absolute necessity in order to get to/from work in order to make a decent living. Driving is a necessity to get food, transport children, receive healthcare, etc. As such, limiting people's ability to travel freely using the technology of the day and geographic location threatens their ability to achieve basic functions necessary in their daily lives. To limit that or make that difficult to achieve is oppressive and therefore in voilation of people's natural right to travel. The fact that the government has used tax dollars to build roads further illustrates the necessity of driving. It would be like if I poured broken glass on your porch and rang your doorbell but told you it's manditory to obtain a license to wear shoes outside. The problem with the state's requirement to register vehicles and obtain licensing is that people don't have a choice. It's either do what want or forfeit the right. As was pointed out earlier only opressed people are not given choices or only provided with unfair choices. Free people should have the right to travel the roads for which they have paid. So my personal policy is that I will comply with the state's request for registration and licensing until which time I disagree with their administration. What that means is I will purchase a license and carry it while driving but if the state's deparment of motor vehicles suspends or restricts my license I shall do so anyway under my natural right to travel.

    • pseudolaw.com

      Article 6, Clause 2 – the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not any natural law theory. Under international law nation-states, e.g. the US, enjoy absolute sovereignty over their recognized territory. No court of any force or effect in the entire world can or will help you if you go the route you propose. Yes, the advent of driver's licensing in the early 1900's could be seen as a considerable reduction of liberty. But that's why we have the state and federal legislatures, so the law can evolve with new technology and societal requirements. The laws were democratically installed. When licensing came about, it was demanded, seen and accepted by the majority of people. If you're not a fan of the US model you could try living in one of a couple hundred other countries. Personally I think the US is still one of the best countries around and should be supported over others like Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc., where there is less equality and civil rights.

  • Charly

    Right to Travel

    DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS, 
    HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS 
    HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS

    By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)

    For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:

    CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

    CASE #2: "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." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

    It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

    CASE #3: "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." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

    CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

    As hard as it is for those in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government — in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question — is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.

    Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions — such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few — on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?  

    For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:

    "The state cannot diminish rights of the people."  

    And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,

    "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."

    Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point — that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward:

    "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24

    "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

    "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

    There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946

    We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question – Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:

    "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;…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 not one word withstanding."

    In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:

    "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…"

    Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are:

    by lawfully amending the constitution, orby a person knowingly waiving a particular right.

    Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups of people in this category:

  • Wiseguy

    “Liberal” scholars, such as pseudolaw, and others, consider private property rights to be government grants of privilege–to be tolerated when convenient to the government, but no longer as a significant human right in itself.

    In pursuing substantial state interest, state cannot choose means which unnecessarily burden or restrict constitutionally protected activity. Dunn v. Blumstein, 92 S.Ct. 995, 405 U.S. 330 (1972).

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

    Does property constitute the rights of individual owners to actions which enjoy constitutional protections against arbitrary government actions or is the government
    supreme? The essence of private property is the bundle of actions which owners may rightfully perform. Logically, any legislation restricting these ownership acts amounts to a regulatory “taking” and the owner ought to be entitled to be compensated for the decline in value of his assets.

    United States v. Guest – 383 U.S. 745 (1966)-

    Rights which are attributes of national citizenship, of which § 241 is deemed solely applicable. Section 241 reaches conspiracies specifically directed against the exercise of the constitutional right to travel freely from State to State and to use highways and other instrumentalities for that purpose; the District Court therefore erred in dismissing the branch of the indictment relating to that right. Pp. 383 U.S.757-760.

    One of the federal rights which 18 U.S.C. § 241 aims to protect are the right to travel freely within any of the states of the United States. If the predominant purpose of the conspiracy is to impede or prevent the exercise of the right of interstate travel, or to oppress a person because of his exercise of that right, then, whether or not motivated by racial discrimination, the conspiracy becomes a proper object of [section 241]. The ultimate purpose of the conspiracy is to unlawfully deprive people of their personal property and to exercise control over that property.

    Governments are instituted to secure our rights, not to decide which rights we are allowed to have. I prefer citations from the federal courts to avoid presumptions of bias that might arise by the State judging its own regulations and because federal decisions are superior to State decisions pursuant to the Supremacy Clause. Quite apart from the guarantee of equal protection, if a law impinges on a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution it is presumptively unconstitutional, See; Harris v. McRae, 100 S.Ct. 2671, 448 U.S. 297, 65 L.Ed.2d 784,rehearing denied 101 S.Ct. 39, 448 U.S. 917, 65 L.Ed.2d 1180 (1980).

    • Wiseguy

      Constitution 101; The Basic Constitutional Rights of a U.S. Citizen

      Civil liberties;
      Rights protect you from unfair treatment under the law. Your individual civil liberties are those – inalienable – liberties mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

      The Right to Life;
      Is about personal decisions. The Right to Hold Property; Your right to hold property is an extension of your right to life. Once you own something, the
      government can’t in the normal course of events take it away from you.

      The Right to Liberty;
      Liberty literally means freedom. Allows you to live your life free of government control. The government can’t force you to take certain actions against your
      will, in the interest of society at large. You have the right to make up your own mind about issues, including those that affect the whole country, not just yourself.

      The Pursuit of Happiness;
      It gives you the freedom to pursue choices that give you pleasure, satisfaction, and self-fulfillment, as long as you don’t break any laws in the process or hurt others. It can’t tell you that you must sacrifice your personal happiness for the good of your country.

      "The 'liberty' guaranteed by the constitution must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiar and known to the framers of the constitution. This liberty denotes the right of the individual to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to locomote, and generally enjoy those rights long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Myer v. Nebraska, 262 U .S. 390, 399; United States v. Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 654.

      • pseudolaw.com

        What's your point? No court on earth finds typical state highway laws unconstitutional. If you want your interpretation to be recognized as binding law in the US/State you need to take your argument to the US/State courts and have them agree with you in public and on the record. If they don't agree with you then there is nothing you can do other than change your argument or overthrow the entire country by force.

        • Wiseguy

          I would love to have the opportunity to do just that, but I can not get an officer to pull me over and ticket me for not having a license. As you know you have to have standing in a court and unless I get ticketed for my lack of a license I have no standing.

          I have been pulled over for various reasons over the years but once the officer finds that there is NO contract (licensed driver) he no longer has jurisdiction and the stop comes to an end and I am sent on my way….. I have asked, and had other who work with police, ask the officers about the subject. They always come back telling me the officer said he can do nothing about it (travel in a private automobile w/no license). Further, one said "his contract must NOT have been renewed".

          I am now waiting for an auto mechanic friend of mine who works on our secretary of states auto's to show her some paper work I drew up and see what she has to say about it. I will return to this site once I have that response!

          • pseudolaw.com

            Bear in mind that cops, prosecutors and judges have a degree of discretion, and them choosing to dismiss a charge or let you go, as is sometimes seen to happen, isn't the same as having a recognized, enforceable right. You may be able to evade minor laws of the elected legislature by wasting public time and resources with pseudolaw but you can't force them to do anything or collect damages when State law is enforced unless they break their own law, in their own eyes, when doing it. If you become a real nuisance they will lock you up and there's nothing you can do. It all comes back to enforceability. The US/State is the only enforcer in town.

          • Wiseguy

            "If you become a real nuisance they will lock you up and there's nothing you can do."

            Do you mean like they do to all truth tellers, like they did to Irwin Schiff. He proves the law then the court ignored his evidence and ignored the law and locked him up for being too honest??

          • pseudolaw.com

            I mean like they do to murderers. You can't go on a killing spree and simply say "hey, your murder statute doesn't apply to me" or waste a bunch of public time and money with frivolous legal arguments to evade punishment.

            If Irwin Schiff "proved the law" he wouldn't have been locked up. I suggest you go read the decisions against him for yourself, if you haven't, and see if you still feel the same way. Anyway, income tax arguments are off-topic here.

          • Kahler Nygard

            Unalienable rights don't include the ability to murder. Stay on topic, if you have the mental capacity to do so

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            And he died in prison last month after having spent fourteen years of his life there thrashing against the plain meaning of the law.

            Asserting that words and phrases mean what you think they mean is not the same thing as "proving the law." He is not invested with judicial authority in the United States, he lost, and the (collective) sovereign he defied used force to end his rebellion. The law was proven, but it was proven by federal courts (many times) and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (twice). The law is that federal income tax must be paid by individuals, and that if you don't, you are subject to penalties including fines and imprisonment.

            It's a horrible tragedy that his life was destroyed by these delusions, and we shouldn't see him as a martyr to a just cause. He was a sick man who couldn't bring himself to accept that the meanings and opinions he'd written in his own head weren't actually binding law. It's because of examples like him that I spend so much time fighting pseudolegal theories. The law isn't always the way we want it, but it generally is the way it appears to be. You haven't already won, you aren't the keeper of the sacred and secret True Law, and judges and bureaucrats will not fall to their knees and clear a path for you when you stretch out your hand.

            Every country on Earth has progress to make and fights left to fight. If you're passionate about justice and holding the government accountable, then we badly need you in the fight. We need you to help us challenge the NSA and domestic spying. We need you to join us in ending the abuses of civil asset forfeiture. We need you in the fight against TPP and foreign business interests out to put us out of a job. We need you here in reality working with us to make our government and society better and more just, not arguing fantasies about definitions that have already been settled.

          • Wiseguy

            I'll tell you two, Ken S. and pseudolaw, what…. I will leave the two of you to your own fantasies, since the only way either of you can get any upvotes is by giving each other the positive click, I don"t think too many Americans believe what either of you have to say.

            Ken, I will say you give a good speech, and I am up on all the above topics you mention. However, those matters are not my fight and are WAY above my pay scale. Although I do disagree with ALL of them, since like the laws others are fighting, they too DO NOT MEET CONSTITUTIONAL SCRUTINY and are illegal under the Supreme Law of this land, in one way or another. The fact is, as you should well know, this boat (America) is about to sink. So, if you two are as smart as you try to sound, you might want to start thinking about siding with the people of these United States. Cause once this ship starts to go down you know who they will blame…..ALL those in power, including those authority type figures like police, lawyers, judges and others. Those in today's ruling class have gone too far. The people back the Donald, that should tell you something…..

            As far as Schiff, he got the shaft! Have you not heard what A LOT of IRS agents have been reporting? As well as numerous CPA's, accountants and even tax lawyers are saying?? Also, as I have said I live by facts, I researched the tax code and Shciff was correct the way the law reads. But I guess it is like the 10th Amendment regarding citizens suing their own state. The law says you can, the Supreme's say you can't (Sovereign Immunity)….go figure???

            At any rate I was going to respect pseudolaw and not make Irwin Schiff a topic here, but felt compelled to respond. I will now remove myself from your company and make no further statements/comments nor return to this site in the future. I wish you gentlemen a blessed future and hope you find the respect and praise you both desire! But remember it has to be earned….. God Bless!!

          • pseudolaw.com

            You do understand that if there were some loophole to get out the government could simply write another law, right? They, the so-called People's representatives, are in charge of making the law, interpreting the law and enforcing the law. They can even amend the Constitution. But you seem to think you can beat them at their own game. If/when it goes to shit (not yet in the west, in my opinion) it will be up to the people as a whole to declare their independence and start a new government (and military) just the same as in 1776. PS lose the ad-hominem – it is NOT a valid rebuttal. PPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_arguments

          • Common Sense

            "the so-called People's representatives" This is why we can never have freedom or justice. When they are under investigation or allowed known abuses of power they are never held accountable, but we the people are expected to be subject and accountable to every law they make. When they're under investigation and know the crimes they committed will end them in prison for a very long time the evidence mysteriously goes missing or is accidentally destroyed. There is no freedom or justice, the only amount exists inside the heads of people that are content with the way their life is because they believe the way things are cannot be changed. People are far from happy with government or the country they live in but allow their daily life to keep them occupied and have little free time to do anything else after hard work. Back in the 80s they could fill a whole one or two weeks grocery shop with $20-30 and now that costs over $100. The USD is worthless. The American Empire is falling fast. The establishment will continue to commit any and all crimes it can against its own people and the world in order to attempt to claw onto its power, it will ultimately fail. Because, there are better countries in the world than America and they will be fairer and more honest and rise above America, to the point where it becomes dependent on the rest of the world for its existence. America had the best chance in all modern history to give it a good go and it blew it. It now lives on debt, perversion, corruption and wars – the very things its founders and countrymen claimed to be escaping from, it has become!

          • pseudolaw.com

            Personally I think there are many worse countries that should be reformed before the US. In my reality, the US democratic republic remains a beacon of freedom and civil rights throughout much of the world and plays a significant and important role in the global economy and society.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            I'd let you go, but my goal is to avoid letting bad information seem to have the final word. I won't let you end with misleading questions and information.

            1) Many Americans do believe what we have to say, because the overwhelming majority accept the United States and the federal government as legitimate governments with the authority to create and execute law. Most Americans accept that they have to pay income tax, most Americans understand that licensing and registration is mandatory, and most Americans grasp that the definition that fits best is usually the one you should use. Some people support Donald Trump, and some do not. He is not the appointed representative of the American people by popular acclamation.

            2) Schiff was a buffoon and every single argument he raised against the federal income tax was easily dismissed with a little research and a little common sense. His entire work depended on trying to find terms and technical points he could twist and misrepresent in order to enrich himself and sell his books. The fact that he lost every case he was ever in is not because of a conspiracy within the IRS or federal courts — it was because his arguments and logic were laughable and without any real merit.

            3) No, I have not heard what "A LOT of IRS agents" (who?) have been reporting, nor CPAs, accountants, and tax lawyers. Why don't you tell me so I can show you why they're clueless, lying, or misrepresenting their credentials? Or perhaps you just read a conspiracy theorist's blog post asserting that these ominous, anonymous reports have been made, and it has no basis in fact?

            4) Sovereign immunity is more or less a consequence of the fact that the courts are run under the authority of the government/sovereign. It would be a simple matter for the government to tell the courts, "no person has standing to bring suit against us in any case whatsoever." Every government in the world has this theoretical power over their own judiciary. In the United States, the state and federal governments have all surrendered a portion of their sovereign immunity and can be sued. They are sued often, actually, and the plaintiffs win on a regular basis. Nothing in the 10th Amendment annihilates sovereign immunity, the 11th Amendment affirms sovereign immunity, and sovereign immunity has been with us since the invention of governments.

          • Common Sense

            And so we have mob rule by majority. No better than Nazi Germany.

          • pseudolaw.com

            "The worst thing in this world, next to anarchy, is government." Henry Ward Beecher

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            That's natural law for ya. It's not quite as simple as the majority, though. Throughout history, there have been two things that determine who gets to rule: violence and popular support. If you can apply enough violence, you don't need popular support. If you have enough popular support, you don't need violence. A hundred dictatorial bureaucrats can rule over ten thousand people if those people are unwilling or unable to fight them. A hundred revolutionaries can topple ten thousand dictatorial bureaucrats if the bureaucrats are gutless or unable to protect the regime. That's what's so great about elections, really. They're regularly-scheduled bloodless revolutions, so we don't need Romanian term limits.

          • doug f.

            Except for the fact that elections are a sham until the electoral college is done away with.
            So, no, they are most definitely NOT a revolution of any sort.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            The Electoral College only affects two elected offices. There are thousands of important elected offices that are completely untouched by the Electoral College. The Electoral College is just a way of balancing the influence of states in the union. There are downsides and I think it should be changed too, but it's not a tyrannical or evil institution.

            Among important important elected offices:

            100 U.S. Senators
            435 U.S. Representatives (voting)
            50 Governors
            1,972 State Senators
            5,411 State Representatives/Delegates

          • Common Sense

            There will never be justice in their system. They are above the law and all laws they make they do not abide by, if recent history of the past decade or two has not proven this then the past few centuries won't be proof enough either. If things are shown in a court of law to be corrupt or illegal under their system they simply law make a new (bill) law and keep pushing until it comes into law to make what they want to do legal. The statutory system is probably the most perverted thing in existence along with the banking system. It poses as being there to protect people and their rights and attempts to replace all natural law and common law. For me, there is only one law, natural law, not common law or statutory law which is no better than laws by corporates. I am not saying some laws are good and do serve us very well, but most do not.

            NSA and global echelon spying was happening for decades before the revelations of Snowden, some people warned about this in the 1980s and 1990s when few people knew about the existence of such a global encompassing electronic surveillance system. Some of those even made it to TV so people cannot say they were not warned.

            It doesn't matter what rights you have under their system, they grant them and can just as easily deny them. Representative democracy is not democracy at all because those people are always easily corrupted, which is human nature to an extent. The necessary safeguards for a fair and free world do not exist in any government, one that could work would be a version modeled on the Swiss system, democracy with proper safeguards to ensure corruption is promptly dealt with and to a large extent is prevented in the first place due to its near perfect design.

            I don't like the direction the world is heading with many things including the use of certain technologies and lack of regulations. Some new technologies may end up taking away our liberty or used as an excuse for that when in reality there is no reason for it at at all (to take away freedom). Such as self driving cars. We may find if we are forced to by law to only be able to use cars that are self driving and fleet owned, then down the road into that world, our freedom of movement is restricted to certain areas only. When reading articles on this upcoming technology and how the world will soon have autonomous vehicles, they are nearly always projected in a positive light with extreme bias (not obvious to most people it seems). Many areas including insurance, cost reductions, safety are very biased and no fair comparison to human driven cars are given. If the technology is ever to be allowed then it will need to be safe enough to cope with human drivers and this means an AI that is very dynamic and intelligent at predicting the unpredictable behavior of people and their actions. Hopefully Americans and the rest of the world will never allow the enforcement of automated only self driving vehicles. I accept they are far more efficient and safer when only they are on the road, but there are many exceptions and scenarios that journalists and the industry conveniently ignore or have not thought of. Including exceptions to efficiency because of the way we actually use cars when it comes to a mode of transport. I know there will be many cases that self driving cars actually do not suit our dynamic and versatile schedules at all, especially in smaller towns. Closed source codes are also very vulnerable to hacking and may even be subject to terrorism and mass murders caused by deliberate crashes.

            Unfortunately when we discuss politics people are too easily (by design at this point in time because we could definitely do better) divided by left right wing paradigms, when in reality no one truly fits into either right or left on all policies, so why let such lame arguments define us when it comes to politics instead of finding solutions and policies that actually would work for everyone. I am not naive enough to believe a perfect system can ever be devised but we can definitely do better than we have now.

            There is no fixing their system when they always call the shots. Did I elect to be a part of this society or their laws? No, and representative democracy has no answer to that, other than to suck it up. At least the Swiss model of democracy does offer some solutions to these problems but it is far from a better version of what it could be. There is no way we can reform government, not until we become government! I don't see that happening right now. The government and its laws, how many billions more must die at its hands before we do wake up and admit we can do better than what we have now. Every government murders, lies and is corrupt. They lied about income tax being temporary measure, they lied about the war on drugs and war on terror and billions of other things. The governments of the world have been responsible for killing more than any other source of power or group ever in existence. Government and its law should NOT be followed or blindly obeyed. We have natural [secular] law that should be obeyed above all else. Government will never allow peaceful people to live a peaceful life, they are not happy until they dictate every aspect of their daily life and even then they forever want more and more control They are a bunch of maniacal psychopaths with a thirst for control that is never satisfied.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            The answer is that you are going to have to suck it up and make decisions about what to do in reality. Philosophical arguments aside, the practical fact is that governments are usually able to enforce their laws. No government in the world is immune from corruption or tyranny, so our options for improvement are limited. We can participate in government to the best of our ability (which varies greatly from country to country), or we can replace it with a new one. The USA are actually very good at allowing meaningful participation, and lots of things are accomplished through that. They also have significant failings that undermine their representative nature. I've traveled a LOT, and I can tell you unequivocally that the USA are faaaar from being hopeless tyrannies.

            In fact, that's the reason that it's such a simple thing for people to stand on their principles and reject authorities they find repugnant. It may seem like the government is out to foil you at every turn, but if you saw how tightly other nations are restrained and kept in fear (or prison), you might have a more optimistic view of rescuing the republic. We're a lot better off than people think, and we can make it a lot better than it is now.

            P.S. I really do like your post! So-called "radical ideologies" have a place in the fight for better government, and there's nothing evil about yearning for freedoms that I might personally consider impractical today. There's a big difference between opposing statutory law and pretending it isn't real, and I'm glad you haven't been duped by the scammers and woo.

          • truthman

            Well finally we agree on something … so why do you alienate those clearly interested in the law and the proper application of it. My personal experiences is that the Judges do not know the laws themselves and do not actually read them as most agents. To which I created the "Ten questions of oath verification or indictment" problem is no one except me has used them.

            Now another solution which only requires the people to get and get others to sign petitions to get it on the ballots and vote it in. It is simple and should have been corrected a long time ago. In short: periodic testing (every 6 months) as to their knowledge, understanding and accurate use of "The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America" as it is the founding public Trust from which Principles "any Form of Government" is founded, The Constitution, as it is the "Form of Government" which is present today, and their respective State Constitutions, which is the corporate charter from which the State and "The State of Corruption" corporate entity is subject to and bound by (see Hale v Henkel p. 74 above) and any Statutes, Codes etc that their particular activities make use of. If it is the Code of "Motor Vehicle" then they need to know all of the Terms and definitions and yes we need the legislature to definitively declare that it "Does not apply to any of the people not engaged in some form of Transporting of Property or Passengers for Compensation, Hire, Pay" and have the officers trained to know this as well.

            I raised the issues before because they are applying law that just does not exist!!! It is called "color of law action" and is subject to suit. I will be filing suit on this issue once I am done with what I consider more important issues, such as Fraudclosures, Property tax which is unlawful because there is no activity going on which is taxable under the Statutes!! And they do not follow due process when they unlawfully sell counterfeit instruments appearing to be the sale of your property!! I actually called the Secret Service and after telling him I don't care if you have studied it for two weeks, just shut up and listen as I read it as it is written. Then I narrated exactly what is being done and he then agreed that it was in fact violations of 18 USC 471, 472 and 474… he then upon the realization said, "this is going on nation wide" Yes, and then he said the most astonishing thing "this is just too big for us" to which I replied "how do you eat an elephant.. one bite at a time" he said ok send the evidence over…

            This is what we need to do, one bight at a time, one proper case at a time… that is why I am not haphazardly filing bullshit based upon bullshit cases which were improperly argued or the wrong thing argued. Instead I am studying and helping others and reading an realizing "how" it is being done and "how" to box them in. I have won several times now and the first was the hardest and I had to go all the way to the Supreme Court of the State and actually imply that I was going to force the 9 judges to indict themselves by an declaratory judgment in which it would say "this court no longer is going to abide by the clear wording of the State Statute which reads " quoted it" and we are over turning the five cases (I listed them) in which we did abide by the published law."

            Fastest return mail I ever got, which was more evidence of consistent mail tampering, only two days.. they granted my reconsideration. It took them six months to figure out what to do, finally, took original jurisdiction as it appeared to be a "novel case" did a writ of mandamus, and Vacated all of the Judges orders. They still did not apply the law properly to which I made record of and will sue later for but I got most of what was in accordance with the law as it is written and not misused or interpreted.

            So please work with those that have succeeded and stop bashing and attacking them personally when they have what appears to be the same desire… and perhaps just perhaps you may learn how they have succeeded where others have not and spread that around, instead of the lie that the statues and codes regulate your Rights, whether or not it is travel without license or regulation so long as one "does not trespass upon "any others "rights"… yes it seems insurmountable at first but once you know that they are applying law that does not exist the only way to discover the solution is to study and know the entire Statutes and Codes so that you can cut them off at the pass.

            Example, in court my friend said she was not "working" which in her mind was sufficient to express that she "was not engaged in any form of transportation upon the highways of property or passengers for compensation as defined and regulated by section 46.2" and she is right if the judge knew the law and was in honor and in "good behavior" "to secure these Rights" But he was not he had no clue and even asked "were you behind the wheel"

            Having full knowledge of the Code in that state I would have ASKED.. "where is the definition of "behind the wheel" in the Code so I may answer your inquiry properly".. knowing that no such thing exists. He had a show to put on and did not want all the other people finding out that they are not subject to the code if they are not engaged in an activity clearly described in it.

            But the ground work was laid for a complaint and a suit against the State for "color of law action" and violation of 18 USC 241

            "§ 241. Conspiracy against rights

            If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

            If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured –

            They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

            § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

            Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

            So you see the law is on our side.. after all we created it to "bind" those in office and the judges

            "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.

            The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;"

            So you see they are engaged in criminal activities and so far as any laws of any State to the contrary… "notwithstanding" and also see 14th Amendment "

            No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
            So even if you think that it is a privilege "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge"
            Gotta go do a show with people that actually want to learn this how, not the patridiot stuff nor the tried and untrue dumbass claims nor improper pleadings nor trying to ignore the laws, Statues etc but actually using them and showing that they are being misused as written.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Wait a second. How does the 14th Amendment apply to you? Did you suddenly become a "person?" I thought the 14th Amendment only protected the rights of "persons," and that only corporations were "persons!" What's going on here!?

            Is it possible that you know perfectly well exactly what "person" means in the law, but purposefully use a different definition whenever it suits your crackpot theories, regardless of whether any language, history, or case law suggests that your definition is applicable?

            Nooooo, that couldn't POSSIBLY be what's happening here…

          • Kahler Nygard

            Oh look another dumbass arguing definitions who thinks he knows how the world works. Hey news flash, definitions are only what two or more people agree on. That's why different dictionaries have different definitions. And I thinks its pretty obvious how I am recognized as sovereign "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

          • doug f.

            Settled by the same criminals that rule over us.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Judges? In what way are they criminals? So far as I can tell, they interpreted the law as any reasonable person would read it, and rejected Schiff's frivolous pseudolegal claims.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            L. O. L.

            To add onto what pseudolaw said, police are not judges. Their legal training is not extensive, and many of them will back off from legal-sounding phrases out of fear of a lawsuit. Others just don't care enough about a small money violation to put up with your bogus crap. Not to mention, drivers who claim they don't need a license kind of have a history of murdering people, and many police are keenly aware of this. Most of them would rather let you feel like a winner than stay where you can attack them over a minor administrative violation. If you happen to get pulled over by one of those officers whose ego won't tolerate ever backing down, you may get your chance to see what the courts think of your fun little theories.

          • Wiseguy

            I would just add and respond with the following;

            I never say any more to the officer then to let him know “my license is expired”, not revoked or suspended, I just never renewed it. Once I say that the officers (three to date) have told me it's no longer necessary to even show them proof of registration or insurance. Wounder why that is…. No, I never attempt to educate an officer on the side of the road with
            “legal-sounding phrases” nor ask them to “put up with [my]
            bogus crap” as you call it.

            Don't you think that is a little extreme saying, “drivers who claim they don't need a license kind of have a history of murdering people”?? What is it that you are insinuating when you say “kind of have a history” anyway? Regardless, thank God I am a Traveler by law and not a “driver”. LOL

            Then you go on to say, “Most of them would rather let you feel like a winner than stay where you can attack them”. Now that is too funny (lmmfao)!! They have night sticks, pepper spray (mace), stun guns, loaded pistols, loaded semiautomatic (military style) weapons in their trunks and can call for BACK UP (more weapons) if the need arises. Not only are they (police officers) typically the ones doing the attacking, but those in the system protect them even if they kill a citizen. So don't make it sound like citizens who want their freedom back are in any way the aggressors. I have NEVER heard of anyone attempting to murder or attack an officer over this issue! I would think I would have heard about it cause my oldest son is actually a Fort Worth, Texas police officer…

            Bottom line is your comment above is one of you own “fun little theories”!!

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Sovereign citizens like these sorts of arguments, and yes, they have murdered police before. Most notably, a father and son team of crackpots burst out of a truck in West Memphis and shot two officers dead because they were upset that police had pulled them over for such a violation. Other attacks have occurred, and some FOTL/SC gurus (like "the Admiral") do openly advocate murdering officers of the court, as well as their families. I doubt you have any wish to attack police, but officers are very well aware of these threats. A lot of them would rather just drop the issue than risk the kind of sudden extreme violence that some pseudolegal enthusiasts use to overpower police.

          • Wiseguy

            Well Ken, I would like to thank you for the clarification on your statement. Your absolutely correct that I personally would NEVER harm anyone, unless in a self defense situation. I prefer the courts to fight my battles, even though I know just how corrupt they really are. When I take a case to court I put my best fight forward and learn more with every case. At very least I put those who DO WRONG on notice. Had I known then what I know today, those I have sued in the past in federal court would have never walk away with government immunity.

            I am also sorry that there are those folks out there that think they need to "attack" or "murder" to retain their rights. Maybe if there was less corruption in our systems of government citizens would not feel the need to resort to such actions.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            I can sympathize, but my problem with this is that when you adopt pseudolegal theories in your fight against corruption and bad government, you're punching at a target that doesn't exist. Trying to get rid of bad laws by insisting that they aren't real and that you've already won means that you're not going to focus your efforts where they really belong, which is in legislatures, juries, and executive offices. An individual who counts on living under laws of their own choosing may get away with it for a while regarding minor regulations, but they don't really change anything. If you want government officials held to a higher standard, you need to be part of a movement to change the law that the courts use. Part of that law includes statutes which specifically define you as a driver within the context of state transportation codes. If you don't want the state transportation code to require licensing of drivers (read: all operators of self-propelled vehicles on roads) and registration of motor vehicles (read: self-propelled vehicles on roads), then you need to start campaigning for it and get the law changed.

          • doug f.

            See, that's where the problem started. People who think your only form of redress in a "civilized" society is to write letters, take people to court, protest, etc.
            What are you left to do when the whole system is corrupt and "justice"is basically for sale?

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            If we were that far gone (and we're not), I would recommend convincing people that you're right with examples and rhetoric, and organizing them. When people are dissatisfied, organized, and determined, options include electoral challenges, general strikes, revolution, and so on.

            Assuming you're living in a first-world republic, it's not realistic to think that you're going to get people to tear down a long-established, stable government that few people actually have the desire (or nerve) to seriously challenge. In 2015, the options most likely to succeed are within the system, not outside it. Implementing change through elections and litigation is much more feasible right now. I support your right to agitate against the government and call for its dismantling, but I don't think we're in bad enough shape for people to take up that cause.

          • Jenkem Huffington

            Late to the party here, but can you compare statistics of how many people who have "private property" sign in place of a license plate kill police compared to people who do not? One case in your lifetime (and doubtful they used "machine guns") vs a dozen cops executed in the last month or so by Muslims and other African fanatics.

            Seems to me that out of groups that are likely to shoot at police, the "private property" types are pretty low on the list statistically speaking, though for some reason the state is more interested in them than the Johnny Jihad types that we import by the tens of thousands to enrich us with their vibrant culture.

            That all said, I know guys that do this whole no license and "private property" on the car business and while they seem to beat the rap, they can't beat the ride. Being beaten by police, thrown in jail, 5 day psych evaluations, then many hours of court appearances and other time wasting…. I chose my battles and 100$ a year in "registration" and "drivers license" is a small price to pay for avoiding the troubles associated with making a stand for this particular issue.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            I'm not aware of any statistics kept for that specific question, so I can't compare them. You're probably right about the gun, though. It keeps getting described as "an AK-47" or "an AK-47 variant," but it was a mistake to guess that he had actually gotten his hands on one instead of a semi-auto copy. Not sure what I was thinking there, so I'll edit that.

            As for the actual likelihood, I'm not trying to make a statistical point. I'm explaining why any given police officer might be inclined to drop the issue. They're being told that there's a war on police (there isn't), they're valiant heroes being gunned down at every turn (they're not), and the whole world is out to get them (it's not). When they run into an ideology whose adherents believe that police are criminally victimizing them by enforcing the law and may have prepared for exactly such a confrontation, writing a ticket for a missing or expired registration sticker suddenly becomes a lot less important.

          • Jenkem Huffington

            There isn't a war on police? Have you seen the news in the last year or two? Ferguson, Baltimore, Chicago, NYC?

            Statistically speaking police are more likely to get clipped by a car standing on the side of the road trying to generate revenue for the state, but you don't see them stopping that. They are further more statistically likely to be shot by black males under the age of 30 but you don't see them just letting them go.

            There are legitimate arguments as to why people "get away with" not having a drivers license or registration, but I think police fearing being shot isn't one of them. I'd wager that scenario is statistically about as likely as drowning in a bathtub.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            And yet police are still statistically safer than private security guards. There is no general campaign of violence against law enforcement officers, so I'd say no, there is no "war on police" in the sense meant above. As for why some offenders and offenses are more likely to be ignored than others, you'll have to ask a police officer if you want their perspective. 😛

            What I can tell you for a fact is that it is illegal and unlawful to operate a private conveyance on public roads without a driver's license and registration in every jurisdiction in the United States and every other developed country I've looked at. If you do so for an extended time and don't get cited for it, you are indeed, "getting away with" a violation of the law.

          • Jenkem Huffington

            No general campaign of violence against LEOs. You'd have a hard time selling that to the boys in Chicago, Baltimore, or East St. Louis, but OK then.

            Keep an eye on that idea though because it seems the anti-police propaganda war is raging strong and there is some money and organization behind those subversive groups. The battle may very well heat up over the next few years with the meme of more federalized police replacing local authority or more federal control of local police gaining momentum.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            "You'd have a hard time selling that to the boys in Chicago, Baltimore, or East St. Louis, but OK then."

            I would, because they're being told that there are far more violent attacks against them than there really are, and that the whole world is lurking in the shadows, waiting for a chance to kill them. The reality is that they're still safer than mall cops.

          • Jenkem Huffington

            Do you have a source for this claim? Seems to me that actual big city police have a very dangerous job and any low(er than average) death toll would be chalked up to equipment and more efficient first response to incidents than an overall statement of the safety inherent in the job.

            Or is this just a matter of averages and demographics? That in my little rural town we don't need security guards anywhere (except I suppose driving armored cars) and also police have a rather easy job. So for example, a mall cop in Detroit is inherently in more danger.

            That "statistic" seems a bit bent and misleading in any event.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-fleetwood/how-dangerous-is-police-w_b_6373798.html

            I know it's HuffPo, but it's pretty well-sourced. Policing is not nearly as dangerous as it's perceived to be by the public, or by officers themselves. Even in big cities, this is the case. There is not a growing epidemic of attacks on police.

            Hell, I just did the math from the 2014 occupational fatality stats.

            My NAICS is 48311. In 2014, average employment under that NAICS was 40,529. There were seven fatalities under that NAICS, for a rate of 0.173 fatalities per 100,000.

            The NAICS for police is 92212. In 2014, average employment under that NAICS was 645,186. There were ninety-three fatalities under that NAICS, for a rate of 0.144 fatalities per 100,000.

            So, my job is 20% more dangerous than a police officer's. Somehow I don't feel like I'm in constant peril.

          • Jenkem Huffington

            Your other comment showed up in my email but appears to be deleted on the thread.

            Again, I wonder if "fatalities" alone really shows the danger of police work? If I'm out in the woods with a chainsaw and get hurt I bleed out and wolves eat me before anybody finds the bones. If cop has pulled over a car that comes up stolen or owned by someone with felony warrants help is already on the way if not on the scene and if something does go badly they have first responders right there and likely the fastest access to ambulance dispatch possible.

            I don't know what your job is, but I'd wager if you get hurt vs when a cop gets hurt his odds of survival are far better just by the nature of the job, when the risks occur, and how they prepare for those risks.

            Of course Huffpo is publishing that with an anti-police agenda so their methodology and phrasing is highly suspect. Considering police are paid to apprehend societies degenerates and malcontents it's silly to assume the job is not inherently dangerous particularly in areas with high populations of said degenerates.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            I'm not sure why it's taking so long, but I do have a correction. I used a different tool from the BLS and got 105 fatalities instead of 93, so the fatality rate for police is 0.163, not 0.144 per 100,000, and my job is 6% more dangerous, not 20%.

            As for my industry, if I get hurt, I could be a week from adequate medical treatment. It's rare that we're close enough to land to get airlifted quickly, and even if I am removed to a hospital, it's likely to have substandard facilities. I still feel pretty safe at work.

            I got the employment numbers from http://www.bls.gov/cew/ and the fatality numbers from http://www.bls.gov/data/#injuries.

          • Jenkem Huffington

            So can you see my point that "fatalities" alone don't tell the whole tale of danger, and a big city police officer (who is more likely than a small town copper) will have fast access to the best medical care in the world compared to nearly anybody?
            There's plenty of bad stuff short of dying that can and does happen to these folks every day.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            They haven't finished compiling the injury/illness data from 2013 yet, but I can look at 2012 if you like. Still, this is more about perception than statistics. Police are told about sovereign citizens and trained to be extremely cautious and careful with them, more careful than with almost anybody else. Cautious enough that disengaging instead of pursuing a fix-it ticket or a plate citation would look pretty smart.

          • Jenkem Huffington

            Could be. That really puts us in Bizarro-world, when we're supposed to pretend that tens of thousands of Islamic fanatics (who's home countries are perpetual warzones) are going to be model citizens while a natural born American who just wants to be left alone is the enemy. I suppose that's the priorities of the powers that be though.

            I find it hard to believe that experienced police are that stupid to not have developed some sense of pattern recognition of who is likely to be dangerous, but you may well be right. At this point you'd have to be insane to take that job in the first place.

          • Wiseguy

            I have to agree with the Oklahoma City University Law Review Summer, 2005 30 Okla. City U.L. Rev. 245. The article – CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: The Orphaned Right: The Right to Travel by Automobile, 1890-1950 / by Dr. Roger Isaac Roots, J.D., Ph.D., who stated in the article;

            “The degree of traffic regulation is discounted as trivial by some Americans, but it has important implications on the level of freedom in the United States. Americans are largely dependent on motorized travel today because a substantial amount of all land travel is by car. Most Americans do not have access "to any viable alternative public mode of transportation." They must rely on automobile travel as their primary means of getting to work and for many of their basic practical, social, and recreational needs. Today, people are more likely to come into contact with law enforcement officers as a result of road traffic than in any other circumstance. Thus, the impositions of driver licensing and traffic patrol by agents of the State have generated a very real increase in the State's control over Americans' lives.”

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            You mean the paper that pseudolaw links to in the article text? You don't need to add all that fluff at the top to make yourself look authoritative and well-read.

            It's an uncomfortable situation when the majority of Americans rely so heavily on a dangerous activity like driving to go shopping, get to work, see doctors, and so on. How do you provide for both safety (not just theoretical unmet liabilities) and access to such an essential means of personal transportation?

          • truthman

            Finally someone who gets it and actually does it!! Good on you!!! The problem is that they are so used to being slaves that they are scared to death that they are actually responsible for their own actions so they cling to the dictators so they will have and out.. "not my fault I was obeying the dick-tators…." I saw a lot of this in the military "lifers" we used to call them because they just could no longer survive on the outside.. same thing with people in jail for too long, it is called being "institutionalized" these people will commit a crime just to get back "home" in jail.

            It is similar here these persons do not understand Rights, Freedoms or Liberty and the responsibility that goes along with it. Because they can not grasp it themselves they Fear it in others and can not conceive that people actually can and do act responsibly on their own without government (meant to be governed). They also can not conceive that the People Create the Government and are the Principles thereof and actually liable for the criminal activities engaged in around the world.

            No explanation will satisfy them and until they realize that the Government is our creation "That to secure these Rights Governments are instituted among men,.."

            In the same manner that a corporation can not create laws for the State the State can not create Laws for the People.

            Hale v Henkel – P. 74 "

            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 an examination at 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 an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by 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 a refusal to incriminate himself and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

            Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the State. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to

            Page 201 U. S. 75

            act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not, in the exercise of its sovereignty, inquire how these franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose. The defense amounts to this: that an officer of a corporation which is charged with a criminal violation of the statute may plead the criminality of such corporation as a refusal to produce its books. To state this proposition is to answer it. While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute, it does not follow that a corporation, vested with special privileges and franchises, may refuse to show its hand when charged with an abuse of such privileges."

          • pseudolaw.com

            Stick to arguing the facts and lose the ad-hominem and I might not delete your posts.

          • Iva Sue McCoy

            I don't need a license. I haven't murdered anyone. Also, the "sovereign citizen" is an oxymoron used by morons.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            If you want to lawfully operate an automobile on public roads in the United States, you do. That's the consensus of the legislatures and the courts, as guided by the common law.

          • pseudolaw.com

            Emotional and personal attacks devoid of substance are not a constructive substitute for a valid argument, therefore I've deleted your post.

      • Iva Sue McCoy

        thank you, wiseguy. I appreciate your knowledge

    • pseudolaw.com

      Rights devolve from a sovereign, i.e. government, because rights are only as good as the ability to enforce them. In international law the highest law is the nation-state, i.e. recognized countries such as the US. You can't just make up whatever you want and expect the whole world to bow down to your will. You need the government and all its force to back you up. Or, if what you want to do is against the local government's laws, you need to overthrow the government. (Do you even have a military?)

      • Kahler Nygard

        The people are the sovereign, hence why the powers are reserved for the people , and DELEGATED to the federal government. read the us constitution sometime eh? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

        • pseudolaw.com

          The people are collectively, not individually, sovereign. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty. The people speak through their representatives in the state and federal legislatures, the highest law-making bodies in the country. The powers of the people were certainly not contemplated by the founders to enable individuals to wield legal superiority over the government. That would be chaotic, not orderly. Looking at interpretations of the supremacy clause, I am not sure the powers of the people have ever been considered by the courts. I assume it would be interpreted to mean the people reign directly where the federal and state governments are silent.

  • Wiseguy

    Your mentally deranged babble makes you a FOOL after seeing the
    following videos… EVERYONE will believe and have knowledge of the REAL
    truth!

    Look on youtube for a November 7, 2015 posted traveler video called;

    Short Traffic Stop: Right to Travel VERIFIED! (good view)

    LISTEN CLOSE TO WHAT THE POLICE MAN SAYS……!

    Then look at this brave young mans other recent videos including;

    Shortest Traffic Stop EVER! Right to Travel upheld.

    HAPPY TRAVELS ALL!! IT"S YOUR RIGHT!!!

    • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

      I'm really curious about these videos, but I'm on a satellite connection off the coast of Mozambique at the moment that couldn't handle YouTube even if it wasn't blocked. What does the officer say?

      • pseudolaw.com

        The guy was apparently traveling by self-propelled vehicle without plates, insurance or license. The officer seemed primarily interested in protecting the public from uninsured drivers and appears to agree with the traveler, saying "it sounds like you're doing what you have a right to do", before letting him go. Obviously the cop doesn't know the law when he speaks of such a possible right, but as for not making an immediate arrest for uninsured or unlicensed driving, my guess is they are cautiously biding their time, collecting information, or have been instructed to not waste too much time and money on non-violent civil disobedience. That, or they may be seeking to ensure they remain relevant in the future by creating more misguided criminals. LOL

      • Wiseguy

        Best to get the real facts of what is said by both, the officers and the man, by seeing the videos for yourself. And be sure to watch the one labeled, "Not the shortest traffic stop ever.", where he is detained by several police vehicles while officers contact lawyers, I would imagine since he was detained for over 15 minutes and apologizing for taking up his time! Further, breaching his Forth Amendment rights under the latest Supreme Court ruling in RODRIGUEZ v UNITED STATES (2015) which the court stated;

        "How could diligence be gauged other than by noting what the officer actually did and how he did it? If an officer can complete traffic-based inquiries expeditiously, then that is the amount of “time reasonably required to complete [the stop’s] mission.” Caballes, 543 U. S., at 407. As we said in Caballes and reiterate today, a traffic stop “prolonged beyond” that point is “unlawful.” Ibid. The critical question, then, is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket, as JUSTICE ALITO supposes, post, at 2–4, but whether conducting the sniff “prolongs”—i.e., adds time to—“the stop,” supra, at 6.".

        And further stated;

        "A routine traffic stop is more like a brief stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, than an arrest, see, e.g., Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U. S. 323, 330. Its tolerable duration is determined by the seizure’s “mission,” which is to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop, Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U. S. 405, 407 and attend to related safety concerns. Authority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been— completed. The Fourth Amendment may tolerate certain unrelated investigations that do not lengthen the roadside detention, Johnson, 555 U. S., at 327–328 (questioning); Caballes, 543 U. S., at 406, 408 (dog sniff), but a traffic stop “become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission” of issuing a warning ticket, id., at 407."

        Three different officers in three different videos let the man on his way without incident and the man thanks the last officer by hand shake for upholding his oath!

        If the officers wanted to at very least give the man a ticket to appear in court or give him a verbal warning, that could have taken place in less then the 15 minutes in that video ("Not the shortest traffic stop ever.").

        And he was NOT traveling by "self-propelled vehicle" either, he was in his unregistered private property "automobile". Which has been ruled by federal courts as a consumer good, as the man states.

        • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

          In what way is it not a self-propelled vehicle on a highway? Whether it's private property or not, I have a hard time believing that these videos depict a person who is travelling by some means other than a privately-owned vehicle propelled by machinery (including but not limited to electric motors or internal combustion engines) on roadways normally accessible by the public, operated by the person, entity, being, or autonomous assembly of elementary fermions being addressed by the officer, which fits every state's definition of a vehicle, conveyance, automobile, motorized rig-a-jig, thing, object, or assembly of elementary fermions, subject to registration, and whose operators (the individuals, men, women, flesh and blood human beings, persons, or other assemblages of elementary fermions, capable of sense and action as typically expected from those types of intelligent tool-using organisms [i.e. "living things"] numbering roughly 7.3 billion as of 15 November 2015, without regard to capitalization) are subject to mandatory licensing under the police power of the states to regulate domestic use of paved or unpaved surfaces (whether flat, inclined, straight, curved, capitalized, or uncapitalized) prepared and intended for the use of self-propelled vehicles (as described above) without regard to federal laws concerning interstate commerce on roads, which do not invalidate state transportation articles.

          (Wow, it is difficult trying to head off freeloaders-on-the-land and their bad faith semantic games.)

          I find it far easier to believe that a small number of confused officers have been filmed declining to cite an offender than that a century of statute and case law has been flipped on its head in secret. If he was unprepared to address pseudolegal arguments that are carefully designed to be confusing and call on imaginary authority (such as the myriad "right to travel" assertions that rely on a completely fraudulent and fictional excerpt from Routh v. Quinn), fifteen minutes with only secondhand radio access to legal advice is an extremely short time to make a decision that could result in a disastrous civil lawsuit if not made with absolute confidence. Any decision made by an LEO on-scene in this timeframe is hardly persuasive evidence of the complete dismantling of state police power over public highways.

          • Kahler Nygard

            ^what I read above is, "I'm going to ignore the video evidence and revert back to what I believe is correct because it is more comfortable, and less scary.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Just went back and watched the video, since I'd forgotten about it. All it shows is some guy badly misinterpreting case law that refers to automobiles as household goods in certain contexts. Claiming that this means that they cannot also be vehicles subject to transportation laws is like saying "I can't possibly be Catholic, I've already been defined as overweight!" I don't know why that particular cop let him slide, but it doesn't "verify" anything. This kid is just vomiting up memorized phrases from cases he hasn't read or understood.

        • pseudolaw.com

          State police have an oath to defend the State constitution which includes laws created by the State legislature. The video is an example of a cop lacking knowledge, exercising discretion and/or failing his sworn duty to the State, nothing more. The State of Utah, where the video was apparently filmed, does not view its laws about motor vehicles or driver licensing as optional or infringing on any right, nor has any appeal claiming the same been successful. See e.g. City of Salinas vs Wisden.

          Police have the authority and discretion to make an arrest for any violation of any federal, state, county or municipal law as outlined in Atwater v Lago Vista. Ergo, you can lawfully be arrested if you so much as breach a littering or jaywalking bylaw. That means the officer certainly had discretion to arrest the "traveler" for not having insurance in contravention of the Financial Responsibility of Motor Vehicle Owners and Operators Act.

          I expect that next I will be showing you how to properly define words such as "motor vehicle" and "driver" under State law. Tip: 41-1a-102, 41-6a-102, 41-12a-103, 53-1-102, 53-3-102, etc.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Oh shit, I just realized that I used "fermion" in my explanation below, but the 1902 edition of Black's Law Dictionary doesn't have an entry for "fermion!" Therefore, no being composed of fermions can possibly be a "person," a "human being," or an "individual" subject to licensing statutes, and no object made of fermions can possibly be a "car," "truck," "motor vehicle," or "automobile" subject to registration! We were wrong all along!!!

            Even the 1757 edition of Ye Olde Almanack of English Jurisprudence is completely silent on the LAWFUL DEFINITIONS of "fermion," "boson," "hadron," and other subatomic particles. Clearly the law only applies to people who aren't composed of particles, since the older the legal resource you use, the more binding it is on officers of the court in 2015.

          • Wiseguy

            You Don't need to show me anything at all…. I already know, all the terms in my states Motor Vehicle Code are commercial in nature…. as are other states as well, take a look;

            257.33 “Motor vehicle” defined.

            Sec.33. "Motor vehicle" means every VEHICLE that is self-propelled,…..

            257.35a “Operate” or “operating” defined.

            (a) Being in actual physical control of a VEHICLE.

            257.45 “Proof of financial responsibility” defined.

            Sec. 45. “Proof of financial responsibility” means proof of ability to respond in damages for liability, on account of accidents occurring subsequent to the effective date of the proof, arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor VEHICLE, …..

            257.76 “Transporter” defined.

            Sec. 76. “Transporter” means every person ENGAGED in the BUSINESS …….

            257.79 “Vehicle” defined.

            Sec. 79. “Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which
            any person or property is or may be transported ………………

            Personally I am not in the business of a type that would "transport" any person or property. Thus my automobile can not be classified as a "motor vehicle" or a "vehicle", even under the states definition of such words……. I even travel on occasion with guest in my private consumer good automobile, not passengers (like an airline or taxi). To "transport" is a term used when one is receiving a fee to pick up and deliver goods (property) or persons and is a TRANSPORTER ENGAGED in the BUSINESS …….!

          • pseudolaw.com

            Where has a related court agreed with your interpretation? If the legislature doesn't explicitly define a word the court, not you as an individual, decides the definition at common law. I'd be willing to bet a significant sum of money that no court agrees with your interpretation that "transported" in the definition of "vehicle" doesn't apply to those acting non-commercially and you are entitled to your own personal anarchy on the public roads. And even if it was interpreted as such, the legislature could simply change the law to prevent unregulated chaos. There has never been a requirement that laws only cover commercial activity.

          • Wiseguy

            "It is now universally recognized that the state does possess such power [to impose such burdens and limitations upon private carriers when using the public highways for the transaction of their business] with respect to common carriers using the public highways for the transaction of their business in the transportation of persons or property for hire. That rule is stated as follows by the supreme court of the United States: 'A citizen may have, under the fourteenth amendment, the right to travel and transport his property upon them (the public highways) by auto vehicle, but he has no right to make the highways his place of BUSINESS by using them as a “common carrier for hire”. Such use is a “privilege” which “may be granted or withheld by the state" in its discretion, without violating either the due process clause or the equal protection clause.' (Buck v. Kuykendall , 267 U. S. 307 (1925) [38 A. L. R. 286, 69 L. Ed. 623, 45 Sup. Ct . Rep. 324].)

            Under the states definition of a “license”, within the MVC, it clearly states that the definition of a license under the code is in the category of any “driving privileges”.

            257.25 “License” defined.
            Sec. 25. "License" means any "driving privileges”, license, temporary instruction permit, commercial learner's permit, or temporary license issued under the laws of this state pertaining to the licensing of persons to operate motor vehicles.

            Licenses are for the conduct of a business, profession, occupation, the exercise of such when they are a privilege. licensing is in the nature of a SPECIAL PRIVILEGE entitling licensee to do some thing that he would not be entitled to do without a license. San Fransisco v Liverpool, 74 Cal 113.

            “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”
            Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3D 213 (1972).

            I DO NOT "drive". Everyone knows driving is a privilege. What
            everyone doesn't know is that driving is a profession or occupation and that's why it's a privilege. One must be licensed by the State to engage in the profession of driving. Again, I DO NOT drive, I use my personal property for household and other noncommercial travel purposes.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Check the definition of "drive" and "driver" in the transportation code. You might be surprised. You might also be surprised to learn that your excerpt from the Wingfield v. Fielder decision is fictional. Made-up. Fake. It's not in the opinion, and that case had nothing to do with the right to travel. You might also be interested in the fact that the right to travel and use the public roads for noncommercial use mentioned in the Buck v. Kuykendall decision (which, by the way, didn't include one syllable of disagreement with Hendrick v. Maryland) is not the same thing as a right to operate a motor vehicle (i.e., to use your personal property for household and other noncommercial travel purposes). Having the right to use of the roads is not the same thing as having a completely unregulated right for anybody at all to operate whatever conveyance they please in whatever manner they please.

          • pseudolaw.com

            Back in the early 1900's was when automobile legislation first began to appear, as explored in the article sources. At the time some states probably did only require driver's licenses for vehicles operating commercially. I haven't checked the state from the 1925 decision you posted but I wouldn't be surprised if it was the law at the time. The law changes, though, and you can follow the amendments and enactments all the way up to the present day in the state legislative records likely available online.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            EDIT: Never mind, I see that it's Michigan. I think it's interesting that you left off the rest of the definition of "transporter."

            257.76 “Transporter” defined.

            Sec. 76.

            “Transporter” means every person engaged in the business of delivering vehicles of a type required to be registered hereunder from a manufacturing, assembling or distributing plant to dealers or sales agents of a manufacturer, and every person certificated by the Michigan public service commission to engage in the business of moving trailer coaches or mobile homes. This section shall not affect duly authorized permit holders.

            So, going by your logic, the word "transport," in all contexts, means only to transport vehicles from makers to sellers? That doesn't really fit very well into the definition of "vehicle," does it? That would seem to suggest that 1) vehicles can be people, and that 2) only flatbeds and car carriers can be vehicles, but then you need another vehicle that can carry a flatbed or car carrier, since those are the only things that can be vehicles… Oh, dear!

          • Wiseguy

            Ken, that sounds like your twisted characterization of my logic. The logic comes from a study of the code and the use of such terms as used within (since such words are not defined);

            257.6 “Chauffeur” defined.
            Sec. 6. (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3), “chauffeur” means any of the following:

            (2) For purposes of subsection (1)(b), a person shall be considered to be "employed" for the principal purpose of "operating a motor vehicle" when the person's employment customarily involves the necessary use of a "motor vehicle for hire" or for "transporting passengers for hire", or for "transporting for gain or hire" any merchandise for display, sale, or delivery.

            And;

            257.7a “Commercial motor vehicle” defined.
            Sec. 7a. (1) "Commercial motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle or combination of motor vehicles "used in commerce to transport passengers or property" if 1 or more of the following apply:

            Most every reference to these words within the code, as well as everyday understanding and definitions, as well as some court cases I have read, usually regard "transportation" and/or "transporting" has something done by a carrier for hire….

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Alright, then let's look at the rest of the definition of "vehicle" that you also conveniently left out:

            MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE (EXCERPT)
            Act 300 of 1949
            257.79 “Vehicle” defined.

            Sec. 79.

            “Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any person or
            property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, except
            devices exclusively moved by human power or used exclusively upon
            stationary rails or tracks and except, only for the purpose of titling
            and registration under this act, a mobile home as defined in section 2
            of the mobile home commission act, Act No. 96 of the Public Acts of
            1987, being section 125.2302 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

            If you don't like "transported," then what do you think of "drawn?" It's evident that you're a liar and a fraud when you need to snip definitions off in the middle of a sentence to make them fit your laughable claims.

          • Wiseguy

            Just falling in with the rest of this back words country I see. Everything that is wrong is right today and everything that's right is wrong. One tells the truth and is called a liar and a fraud. The reason I shortened ALL the definitions had nothing to do with being a fraud but was simply to save space! As well as the entire definition was not needed to prove my case and I only pasted what was necessary to prove a point.

            And so…what have you proven with the rest of the definition of "vehicle"?? Oh yes, you have proven once again that I am right with my "laughable claims" as you call them…. Lets take a look at "drawn" then within the code…. so what do I think about it you ask….. Of course there is no definition in the code again so lets see how it is used within the MVC;

            257.7 “Commercial vehicle” defined.
            Sec. 7. “Commercial vehicle” includes all motor vehicles used for the transportation of passengers for hire, or constructed or used for transportation of goods, wares or merchandise, and/or all motor vehicles designed and used for "drawing" other vehicles and not so constructed as to carry any load thereon either independently or any part of the weight of a vehicle or load so "drawn".

            257.59 “Semi-trailer” defined.
            Sec. 59. "Semi-trailer" means every vehicle with or without motive power, other than a pole-trailer, designed for carrying persons or property and for being "drawn" by a motor vehicle and so constructed that some part of its weight and that of its load rests upon or is carried by another vehicle. Semi-trailer does not include any implement of husbandry.

            Yep, looks commercial in nature to me!

            Then when the code refers to a non-commercial use of the roads for leisure or pleasure, like a camper the term "towed" rather then "drawn" is used!!

            257.74a "Travel trailer," "camping trailer," and "fifth wheel trailer" defined.
            Sec. 74a. (1) "Travel trailer" means a trailer coach, fifth wheel trailer, camping trailer, or other vehicle that is designed to be “towed” by a motor vehicle; is designed to provide temporary living quarters for recreational, camping,
            or travel use; and does not require a special highway movement permit under section 719a to be “towed” on a street or highway.

            Just calling them as I see them….sorry if it offends you!

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            The reason you shorten definitions is the same reason every other bullshit artist uses deceptive cuts and excerpts. That's exactly what happened when you provided a false and misleading excerpt for the definition of "transporter" and tried to work that backwards into a false and misleading implicit definition for "transport." If "transport" is just the action performed by a "transporter," then your assertion would more properly be that to "transport" can only mean to move (commercial, according to you) vehicles from makers to sellers, and that this is the definition you have to use when reading the definition of "vehicle." That obviously makes no sense, but you conveniently falsified the true definition of "transporter" to avoid facing that fact.

            You need to alter the meaning of the definition to make it almost sort of fit your theories, and leaving or misinterpreting words out is a very convenient way to do that. Reasonable people understand from the text, context, execution, and history exactly what "transport" means in the code. The common sense understanding of these words makes all these separate sections fit together in a rational and complete way. One section uses the word "transport," another uses "motor vehicle," another uses both, another makes a distinction between commercial and non-commercial motor vehicles, and the common meaning of the definitions makes them into a functional body of law.

            When people like you start trying to fit them into your super special imaginary definitions, suddenly two sentences in the same subsection don't make sense to each other, chapters fall apart from absurd and illogical constructions, and plain language sections that rely on another plain language section get tied up in tortuous knots.

          • pseudolaw.com

            The definition of "transporter" only applies to other uses of the exact word "transporter". Since "transport", "transported", "transportation", etc., are not defined, usage in other sections notwithstanding, the court decides. So to prove these mean anything you need to look to the state traffic court's interpretation of the section in question. If the court hasn't interpreted it yet then that could be an exercise for you – you can bring it up when you get charged and thereby gain standing to defend and appeal. You could also try for a declaratory judgment that confirms what you think is true before potentially breaking the law.

    • pseudolaw.com

      Ask a judge, not a cop. Cops don't have the knowledge or power to interpret the law. This would appear to be just another case of an officer exercising his discretion, probably because he doesn't want to ruin a poverty-stricken family or waste who-knows-how-much time and taxpayer dollars over some minor civil disobedience. That and/or they may be being cautious, collecting evidence before making a move, as some so-called sovereigns are willing to defend their beliefs with violence and abusive legal processes. If you understand the law, though, you know that there is no lawful defense or possibility of collecting damages if/when police do decide to enforce state law in accordance with the state constitution and their oath of office.

    • pseudolaw.com

      Here's an update on the guy in the traveler videos you referenced. As I understand it he has four outstanding charges, three for traffic, and a felony for covering the VIN. The three traffic charges were initially dismissed without prejudice for prosecutorial discretion but were reinstated. When you mess with law it's potentially very serious. I recommend studying for years before "trying" anything, not acting on a whim in desperation or on the advice of some idiot on the internet. https://www.facebook.com/ShaggyPS/posts/985499181519283

  • http://thecountyguard.org/ countyguard

    You are in error… the Constitution trumps federal or state statutes. You need to review the excellent brief here…http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml

    • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

      That's not an excellent brief. It's a collection of deceptive mined quotes and obsolete, inapplicable definitions completely removed from context to make them appear to say things that they do not. 0.00% of the people who post that link have actually read any of those opinions. It's laughable bullshit that only works if you decide that it's true from the beginning and refuse to investigate a single one of the claims it makes. It's lawful-looking schlock for gullible idiots, couched in feel-good "liberty," "rights," "freedom," and so forth to make them feel all fuzzy about the fact that they have zero understanding of how law functions outside of some child sex abuse compound in Texas.

      This is tactic #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 for pseudolegal woo pitchers. A flurry of nonsense quotations with no context, carefully cited by name, date, and number and surrounded with flowery phrases so people think they'll look authoritative when they regurgitate points from cases they've never read and phrases they don't understand.

    • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

      BONUS: Here, have these excerpts from three of the cases cited on your little page:

      CASE #1: "Many cases have been decided respecting the validity and construction of statutes and ordinances regulating their use upon public highways, and it has been uniformly held that the State, in the exercise of the police power, may regulate their speed and provide other reasonable rules and restrictions as to their use." Chicago Motor Coach v. City of City of Chicago 169 NE 221 (1929) in which the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the power of the state to require licensing of private and commercial drivers, but did not allow Chicago to arbitrarily refuse licenses to some commercial operators and not others.

      CASE #2: "The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions." Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579 (1930) in which the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals upheld the power of the state to require licensing of private drivers and to revoke those licenses, but not to revoke them arbitrarily.

      CASE #3: "And, as we have seen, the right of exit is a personal right included within the word "liberty" as used in the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the lawmaking functions of the Congress." Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116, 125 (1958) in which the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the State Department's power to revoke passports, but not on the basis of protected political beliefs.

  • truthman

    Well, You ARE WRONG!! Sorry, but by taking the time to read the State statutes and codes .. all of it and copy past it into a word doc and then search the terms Person, operator, transportation, transport, business, for compensation, for hire, for payment, (different states use different terms) You will soon see a pattern of precise usage of these terms. Most are defined in different sections and may have slight different meanings to be applied to each section but they are defined and when defined no other stretching of the term can be devised! Period.. tons of case law and the courts rely upon the "clear and unambiguous meaning of the terms"… What you will see is a pattern, that each and every time it is referring to a business entity of the state, or an activity which is for pay, compensation or trade, transportation of property or passengers (two terms again for hire, pay or compensation.. once a state uses one term they tend to stick with it.. like Va uses "For compensation" "transportation upon the highways for compensation" and so forth)

    When you read the codes, statutes literally as they are intended to be read it becomes clear that it is only regulating certain activities and those activities are having to do with "operating" a "motor vehicle" "for compensation" "upon the highways" Highways is defined very differently

    *"Highway" means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way or place open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel in the Commonwealth, including the streets and alleys,

    " Here are some examples:

    "Operator" means the employer or person actually driving a motor vehicle or combination of vehicles

    "Person" means any individual, firm, copartnership, corporation, company, association, or joint-stock association, and includes any trustee, receiver, assignee, or personal representative thereof.

    "Personal vehicle" means a motor vehicle that is not used to transport passengers for compensation except as a TNC partner vehicle.

    Now there is a good example where the untrained will jump at this definition to show it does not apply to them because they do not read the whole thing and recognize that "person" is not them. The key is "except as a TNC partner Vehicle" Once you look up and read all about "TNC partner vehicle" you will know that it is regulated as well because it has to do with "transportation of "passengers" for compensation or under an umbrella of a business or for business purposes. Passengers is virtually exclusively used and one can see that a passenger is someone who is either paying or trading or has their trip (being transported) already paid for.

    *"Prearranged ride" means passenger transportation for compensation in a TNC partner vehicle arranged through a digital platform.

    *"Restricted common carrier" means any person who undertakes, whether directly or by a lease or other arrangement, to transport passengers for compensation

    *"Bulk property carrier" means any person, not herein exempted, who undertakes either directly or by lease, to transport exclusively bulk commodities, as defined, for compensation

    Are you seeing the pattern yet?

    *"Courier service" means a motor carrier that engages, directly or by lease, exclusively in the transportation of letters, envelopes, negotiable or nonnegotiable instruments, or other documents or papers for compensation.

    Other key terms "engages" and "undertaking" both business or activities of business.

    *"Household goods carrier" means a restricted common carrier who undertakes, whether directly or by a lease or other arrangement, to transport "household goods," as herein defined, by motor vehicle for compensation, on any highway in this Commonwealth, between two or more points in this Commonwealth, whether over regular or irregular routes.

    "by motor vehicle" "route" "household goods" is another tax term and has to do with the business of households not homes! if only we would read more!!

    *"Motor vehicle" means any vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semitrailer propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used upon the highways in the transportation of property,

    *"Person" means any individual, firm, copartnership, corporation, company, association or joint-stock association, and includes any trustee, receiver, assignee, or personal representative thereof.

    Now don't let the term "individual" trip you up. it does not mean one of the individual people.. it only means singular business entity or an "individual" of the business entity.

    Again lets look at the contrast to the definition of "Roadway"

    *"Roadway" means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the shoulder.

    Here the only other time "ordinary use for vehicular travel" terms are used.

    *"Highway" means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way or place open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel in the Commonwealth, including the streets and alleys,

    And here ya have it "every way or place "open to" the "use" of the "public" for purposes of "vehicular" "travel"

    "Open to use of the public" not "persons", not "motor vehicles", not "operators", not "for compensation" but "ordinary use"

    "Passenger car" means every motor vehicle other than a motorcycle or autocycle designed and used primarily for the transportation of no more than 10 persons, including the driver.

    Now here it may seem a bit tricky except we see the key terms, "motor vehicle", "transportation" and "driver". Leaving no doubt to the diligent and well read that it clearly is not talking about "travel" or "ordinary use".

    And finally we see in the other definitions sections where it is laid out clearly

    *"Operation or use for rent or for hire, for the transportation of passengers, or as a property carrier for compensation," and "business of transporting persons or property" mean any owner or operator of any motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer operating over the highways in the Commonwealth who accepts or receives compensation for the service, directly or indirectly;

    So, What have we learned here? Stupid is as stupid choose not to read.

    Now go back and read the cases given and find what the court said is perfectly correct because each and every time they referenced terms of "drive" as in "driver"

    "The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the ways themselves"

    Clearly using the term "motor vehicles" "over the highways" as in transportation of carriers which "is also abnormally destructive to the ways themselves"

    "public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles…"

    again we see "operation" "upon" and "motor vehicles" Absolutely correct and we want those engaged in the various business fro pay, compensation, and driving upon the highways with product, property and passengers or persons to be regulated.!!! But they carefully have not said anything about the "ordinary use of the public for vehicular travel" now have they? Nope cause that is our right and in fact those roads are for us to "use" "ordinarily" thus the regulated use is "unordinary" and needs to be regulated, licensed and so forth. Yes sir. Just lets not mix them up and apply one to the other, ok?

    "Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process."

    "to protect others using the highway" That is us who need protecting from the "licensees" engaged in or "undertaking" an "unordinary use" of the "transportation" of "property or persons or passengers" for compensation or pay "operating" a business of "drivers" "driving" the product, property from one place to another.

    Now I am sure in your "ordinary use of the highways for vehicular travel" you have encountered several of these "motor vehicles" with "drives" operating "upon" the highway for compensation, and I am sure that you want them to be licensed and regulated and pay various fees for the use of your "roadways" from which "undertaking" they are paid or compensated and causing increased wear and tear whether or not it is on a regular "rout" or not.

    Get it? Got it? Good. So let's stop being so unread and uneducated as to be so easially mislead by clever use of terms and words to deceive without actually lying or deceiving except by ones ignorance of the laws, statues and codes.

    Remember this, "Government" is "meant to be governed" and since we are the Creators of it, and

    "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" and "all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
    Notice "it is their duty, to throw off" (not over throw, but throw off as a coat that becomes uncomfortable) because we are the Principles of these our agents and we the people are liable for what they do. When our Government injures others, we are liable…. and of all countries we are the creators of this Government and fully liable for what it does. Remember the Nuremburg Trials, "I was just following orders did not an excuse make, nor does "ignorance of the law" excuse one from allowing abuse of it by their agents and office holders.
    So stop being "Americant's" who can't take time to read, can't take time and effort to "alter or abolish", can't do your duty to hold your public servants accountable to the law the way it is written. STOP paying tickets you are not liable for nor be extorted by color of law actions, intimidations and misuse of the laws created to secure our Rights and the powers we grant "to effect our Safety and Happiness"
    STOP paying commercial ad valorem property taxes if you are not engaged in some sort of business tax subject to the State or ad valorem tax by the United States. Stop paying "income" or "excess" or "profit" tax from some sort of business activity via an entity of the State, if you are not "engaged" in such activity!!!! Stop taking the easy way out and consenting to extortion, threats and intimidations. Study the law, use it for the purpose it is intended, "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted.."
    If you are fed up and ready to make a difference and learn how to stand up, use the laws as they are written, contact us at truthmonger6@gmail.com that's truth monger 6 at g mail dot com.
    Create groups (right to assemble), read the laws all the way through, copy paste them, with your children and find the key terms, and discover what is not there to know what is not regulated!!
    And then create legislation that causes your public servants to act within the law and with the intent of the law!! For your protection and your children's… Blessings to all who come in kindness

    • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

      You've made it complicated in order to fool yourself. You don't understand the law by reading isolated portions, making up connections and definitions that fit your preestablished conclusion, and ignoring everything else. You understand the law by reading entire sections at a time, looking at the legislative history, and looking at the case law. All these phrases that you've extracted, imagined new interpretations for, and reassembled like Frankenstein's monster do not support you when the plain meaning of the law is clear. When the meaning is clear, you have to make it appear very complicated and conspiratorial in order to fabricate evidence for yourself.

      Take your points about TNC partnerships. You've completely misinterpreted the meaning of that line, and used it to support a baloney point. Do you know what TNC partners are? Do you know why their cars are regulated the same way as personal vehicles not used to carry paying passengers? Why do you assert that the definition of "motor vehicles" is purely commercial when the very text you posted says nothing of the sort? Where are you getting this fantastic notion that "individual" does not include human beings? Are you aware that such tortuous logical stretches have no real connection to reality? Everything you've written is a confused mish-mash of misunderstandings and completely baseless assertions.

      In particular, the common pseudolegal claim that "person" refers exclusively to corporations is the legal, semantic, and logical equivalent of claiming that, since the meaning of the word "fruit" CAN include tomatoes, any use of the word "fruit" MUST refer exclusively to tomatoes, and never to apples, oranges, or bananas. You, the flesh and blood human being using the name "truthman" on Disqus, are both an individual and a person as these terms are used in the traffic statutes of Virginia. There is no rational basis for claiming otherwise, other than the need to use a phony definition to make your theories fit the plain wording of the law.

      Also! You've included the definitions of "prearranged ride," "restricted common carrier," "bulk property carrier," "courier service," and "household goods carrier," when none of these have anything to do with the requirement for private, non-commercial drivers (i.e., flesh and blood human beings in actual control of self-propelled vehicles, owned by flesh and blood human beings for mostly non-commercial purposes, and operated on publicly-accessible surfaces intended for the use of self-propelled vehicles) to be licensed. They merely serve to confuse the issue and let you include more authoritative-sounding excerpts from the transportation article. You're so many different kinds of wrong, it's taking me a while to work them all out.

      And if anybody is intrigued by your exhortation to skip out on their tax liabilities, I would refer them to the estate of Irwin Schiff, a man who lived by the conviction that private individuals have no tax liability and spent fourteen years in federal prison involuntarily proving himself wrong. He hadn't even given them permission to put him in prison!! How can that even happen?!

      • truthman

        Actually you are WROG again.. I have read them from beginning to end several times and that is how one can see the pattern of the use of certain terms which have specific definitions and no others and soon you see that they do not go outside to the definitions or terms used and trespass on the rights of the people by governing them.. but you will undoubtedly cling to your missconceptions to which I say .. all the best in your perceived slavery. I have used these and won so perhaps it Is the way in which I use them?? and in different states… but you have not.. question is have you even ever tried.. I give ore credence to those that try and fail and learn from those failures than those who never try and I abhore those that discourage others from asserting their Rights and that is "giving aid to the enemy" Now go read the whole Constitution and tell me what and where that is and what it means… after you read and memorize The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America as I have.. from which all Forms of Government are derived from and subject to.

        I know you won't look it up so here ya go lazy bones, distractor, giving aid to the enemy.

        We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

        If you do not "hold these truths to be self evident then perhaps you need to find another country with a dick-tator to suck up to ….

        • pseudolaw.com

          Either you support the government based on the state and federal constitutions, legislation and interpretations of the courts or the people overthrow the government and start all over again. You can't have it both ways.

          PS. Lose the ad-hominem BS and stick to the facts or you may be deleted.

          • truthman

            Actually not "over throw" that is a crime but to "throw off" is our duty. " But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." yup!!

          • pseudolaw.com

            Yeah, and to "throw off" means ripping up the Constitution, forming a new military and making a whole new country, hopefully not worse than the existing one. I can think of a number of other countries I'd like to see that happen to before the US, which I don't find half-bad by comparison.

            So you espouse two positions and seem to have difficulty choosing one. One, the rule of law within the US nation-state, and two, rejection of the US nation-state. Do you support the current state and federal constitutions, legislatures and courts or not? And what exactly do your comments have to do with the regulation of travel by automobile on the public highways in the US/States? Are you considering overthrowing a country because you're expected to hold a driver's license? I've got news… hundreds of other states and countries employ the same types of licenses because it's generally agreed to be an effective method of maintaining public safety, so they may not be going anywhere, even if you get your shiny new nation-state. From the article sources we see how the highway laws were installed democratically across the US in the early 1900's. In your state would you ignore the people?

        • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

          The Declaration of Independence is enrolled in the US Code as a reference, but it is not binding law. My understanding is that it has roughly the same status as the Uniform Commercial Code.

          In other words, the Declaration of Independence is historically significant, but not legally significant.

          The Maryland Declaration of Rights includes a similar sentiment, however, and that is law. I like the way they phrased it, actually: "That all persons invested with the Legislative or Executive powers of Government are the Trustees of the Public, and, as such, accountable for their conduct: Wherefore, whenever the ends of Government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the People may, and of right ought, to reform the old, or establish a new Government; the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."

    • Iva Sue McCoy

      thank you. Very intelligent, well researched, and presented.

      • pseudolaw.com

        Please only comment if you have something meaningful to add. "Thanks", etc. merely waste screen space. Thanks

  • doug f.

    So explain to me the redress a citizen has when the supreme court violates the constitution because that's the case here.
    We can't make it where the supreme court can but no one else. The Constitution, then, would be as worthless as the people who consent to loss of liberty in exchange for safety.

    • pseudolaw.com

      As stated at the beginning of the article the Constitution is interpreted to enshrine the right to freedom of movement between States and doesn't speak to the mode of travel or regulation thereof.

      If the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution in a way that Congress or the State legislatures don't like they can amend the Constitution so it is unambiguous and unable to be misconstrued. In this way, the highest power always remains with the people's representatives. If the people become unhappy with all of Congress, the State governments and the courts it becomes time for a violent revolution and a brand new Constitution / nation-state, then the same thing likely starts all over again.

  • David Johnson

    The creator of this post isn't able to read legalese very well.

    • David Johnson

      What's the difference between a State Citizen and a U.S. citizen? If you don't know, you'll believe the creator of this post.

      • pseudolaw.com

        When the States ratified the Constitution guess what happened to State Citizens? They became federal subjects. Then the 14th amendment came along and made slaves, then State property, but already subject to the federal government (the 14th only applied to federal subjects – read it), into citizens of both the State and US.

        What do you believe? Or are you just going to make unsubstantiated attacks?

      • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

        The difference is pretty obvious. One describes a person's citizenship with regard to the state in which they reside, and the other describes a person's citizenship with regard to the federal government. They usually come as a package deal.

        • Kahler Nygard

          The courts are running on maritime admiralty jurisdiction, hence the gold rim around the flag when you go to court, would love to see kens explanation for that. Look at the language he uses "citizenSHIP" its so obvious

          • pseudolaw.com

            "Jurisdiction is a matter of law, statute, and constitution, not a child’s game wherein one’s power is magnified or diminished by the display of some magic talisman." http://archive.adl.org/mwd/suss4.html#fringe Keep asking questions.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Gold fringe has nothing to do with admiralty courts, and never has. It's mentioned in one regulation that doesn't even apply to civilian courts, and that's it. As for citizenship, the suffix -ship is common in English and has no maritime meaning. Similarly, the -hood suffix does not indicate automotive law, and -ness has nothing to do with Scotland.

    • pseudolaw.com

      And you don't seem to be able to make an argument very well. Do you have an actual point or any facts to back up your claim?

  • Mr. Tyring-to-become-educated

    Thank you for this article: it helps to clear up confusions that driving, though a constitutionally guaranteed right, is subject to state regulation!
    I have been doing my own research on a similar subject, and (though I agree that the law is the law and followed), I can't seem to settle my mind about what keeps a state from becoming totalarian: what is to keep the State from putting people in jail for speeding? After all, a crime consists of three component parts: the occurrence of the specific kind of injury or loss; somebody's criminality as the source of the loss; and the accused's identity as the doer of the crime (United States v. Shunk, 881 F.2d 917 ¶ 9 (10th Cir.1989)). An “injury,” legally speaking, consists of a wrong done to a person, or, in other words, a violation of his right (Alabama Power Company v. Ickes, 302 U.S. 464, 58 S.Ct. 300, 82 L.Ed. 374 (1938)). A “loss” is the generic term whereas damage is a species of loss (they are synonymous): damage signifies the lost thing, which a party is entitled to have restored to him so that he may be made whole again (U.S. v. City National Bank of Duluth, 31 F.Supp. 530 at 532 (D.Minn.1939)).
    For example, if a statute says that its a crime to travel faster than 20mph and I don't violate a right or cause damage to anything by traveling 100mph, would that mean that I didn't commit the crime of speeding? Though the statute says don't do it (element 2) and I could be identified as violating the statute (element 3), no injury or loss occurred (element 1). If I'm tried in criminal court for speeding, shouldn't the case be thrown out as there was no injury or loss?

    • pseudolaw.com

      The ability to travel between states is protected, but the mode or manner of travel isn't.

      The injury or loss on a criminal charge is said to be against the collective People of the municipality, county, state or country. The legal rights of the People are said to be breached when a statute made by the People's representatives is violated. Anything that violates the letter of the law is arrestable and may be prosecuted.

      • Mr. Tyring-to-become-educated

        Thank you, pseudolaw. I agree that a violation of the statute is arrestable and prosecutable, but that is not the question posed. I understand the argument that the People's rights are said to be collectively violated. In such a case, one would have to call each and every resident of the State as a witness to testify of the specific injury or loss. After all, the alternative (presuming that there was an actual injury or loss sustained by such a resident a part of the "People") is hearsay, especially so since they are alive and can answer for themselves. What is to keep a State from becoming totalitarian in nature–what keeps a person free from government ternary if not the constitutional right to act without causing a specific injury or loss to another person?

        • pseudolaw.com

          Nothing keeps it from becoming totalitarian except the threat of the people withdrawing their support. I see the logic of "in common law, harm against a specific individual is required", but who created the court? Who pays the judges? It's all under the constitutional framework and legislation. Statutes have always displaced common law. In fact, historical common law only has power in the States because of reception statutes. Without those what little remains at common law wouldn't be enforceable in any existing court. Some States have abolished common law crimes entirely.

      • Mr. Tyring-to-become-educated

        Silly follow-up …
        The question in Atwater was "The question is whether the Fourth Amendment forbids a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense." The answer: "We hold that it does not."
        This finding is already well established: the Atwater court just made it explicit. When a police officer makes a traffic stop, the driver of the car is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment (Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007)). When a police officer seizes a person, said officer has arrested that person (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 at 10-19 (1968)). A warrantless arrest by law enforcement is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed (Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 152–53 (2004)).
        I think it is important to point out that just because a person is arrested and prosecuted does not mean that the accused actually committed a crime. All that means is that a person did what the legislature said is the cause of a criminality. (Court is then held to determine, amongst other things, if the criminality was actually committed, the accused is the person who committed the criminality, and the criminality caused an injury or loss.)

        • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

          Then make sure you vote for lawmakers who won't pass oppressive laws! The only people who really have the power to create, prevent, or destroy totalitarianism are We the People. There's no such thing as an absolute, permanent defense against tyranny. It absolutely could happen here if we allow it to, and it will never happen here if we don't allow it to.

      • http://cecillrussellforpresident.blogspot.com/ Cecil Lee Russell

        You might want to re-think that comment. Every anti civil rights legislation created in the democrat controlled state legislatures-including when democrats seceded from the United States to form the Confederacy-has been declared unconstitutional without fail BUT every one of those statutes were THE LETTER OF THE LAW. You might want to read the case Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/143/457/case.html
        That case declared:
        The first section describes the act forbidden, and is in these words:
        "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that from and after the passage of this act it shall be unlawful for any person, company, partnership, or corporation, in any manner whatsoever, to prepay the transportation, or in any way assist or encourage the importation or migration, of any alien or aliens, any foreigner or foreigners, into the United States, its territories, or the District of Columbia under contract or agreement, parol or special, express or implied, made previous to the importation or migration of such alien or aliens, foreigner or foreigners, to perform labor or service of any kind in the United States, its territories, or the District of Columbia."
        The Supreme Court struck down the premise of "the letter of the law."

    • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

      To add to what pseudolaw said, the state is the second party in every criminal case, even violent crimes with known victims. The way criminal codes are written makes the existence of a victim completely irrelevant. This is why it's not possible for the victim to instruct a prosecutor to drop a case or to forbid prosecution. In a case like that, the victim is merely a witness and not otherwise a party to the case.

      • Mr. Tyring-to-become-educated

        Thank you, Ken. I understand that the victim whose rights were violated or who sustained a loss does not get to choose whether or not to prosecute: that is the decision of the State. Are you suggesting that the way a statute is written overrules the required elements described in Shunk?

        • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

          I'm looking for a succinct reference to cite, but what pseudolaw said explains how the elements listed in Shunk are consistent with "victimless crimes," because the state, as a sovereign, is injured by acts contrary to statute. The federal and state constitutions form one line of defense against totalitarianism by limiting what the state is allowed to require or forbid. Put another way, these constitutions lay out acts which cannot be considered to injure the sovereign state.

          I'm trying to find a more satisfying source for this doctrine, but it's difficult to research since the relevant terms lead to a lot of irrelevant results.

          • Mr. Tyring-to-become-educated

            Thank you Ken. It just seems very counterintuitive. Suppose the state passes a law for universal healthcare, then requires us to do push-ups and sit-ups every morning to stay healthy as to not burden the system. To enforce this regulator scheme, they put cameras and speakers in our homes to monitor us and administer warnings to warn us of non-compliance and penalties. There's nothing that I can find in any state or federal constitution to prohibit this. It would be allowed as promoting "general welfare."

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            If that happened, I would be very interested in a lawsuit claiming that the laws violate substantive due process clause by creating historically unsupportable, unreasonable burdens on liberty. I would also be very interested in the next Congressional election!

          • Mr. Tyring-to-become-educated

            But, what defines that limit? It is certainly not our constitution: history shows us that the State can implement policy to protect the state from damage (aka, out of shape people who use more healthcare resources thereby causing the state to spend more money on the universal healthcare system); and due process is in place to ensure compliance via a warning and a court to try the complaints. (See below where pseudo says there is nothing to stop crossing the line except the people withdrawing support: a/k/a the boston tea party.)

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            The courts decide the limits. That's their job. If they do it badly, then we replace the judges, replace the courts, replace the state, or suck it up and do what we're told. There's no supernatural force that repels tyranny, so I'm not sure what kind of answer you're hoping for.

            What's the last line of defense against oppression? You and me, buddy.

    • Mr. Tyring-to-become-educated

      Ken & pseudolaw: thank you both for your comments. I always was of the impression that the United States was created to separate ourselves from the overbearing government types of Europe where those in power influence our opinions and votes by dominating the political conversation. in those systems, there is nothing to stop the state from infringing upon the natural rights of the people. But it seems as though, from what you two are saying, that we just created another copy of a European political system. You two have given me even more to think about!

  • Ripper420

    https://youtu.be/rplyZdDiCxI…..CHARLIE SPRINKLE TALKS ABOUT NOT NEEDING A LICENSE AND HOW HE TOOK MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO COURT OVER HIS RIGHT TO TRAVEL FREELY

  • Derp

    Most of the following is case law which cannot be argued with. Your rights always supersede legislation.

    "The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and St.
    Lawrence,*and the carrying places between the same, shall be common
    highways and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of the said
    territory as to the citizens of the United States, and those of any
    other States that may be admitted into the confederacy, without any tax,
    impost, or duty therefor." [Northwest Ordinances, Article 4]

    "Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the
    right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is
    an inalienable right of every citizen." Escobedo vs. State 35 C2d 870
    in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27

    "The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to
    transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or
    automobile is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited
    at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life,
    liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Slusher vs. Safety Coach
    Transit Co., 229 Ky 731, 17 SW2d 1012, and affirmed by the Supreme
    Court in Thompson vs. Smith 154 S.E. 579.

    "Users of the highway for transportation of persons and property for
    hire may be subjected to special regulations not applicable to those
    using the highway for public purposes." Richmond Baking Co. vs.
    Department of Treasury 18 N.E. 2d 788.

    "Constitutionally protected liberty includes…the right to travel…" 13 Cal Jur 3d p.416

    In California, a license is defined as "A permit, granted by an
    appropriate governmental body, generally for a consideration, to a
    person or firm, or corporation to pursue some occupation or to carry on
    some business subject to regulation under the police power." Rosenblatt
    vs. California 158 P2d 199, 300.

    "Operation of a motor vehicle upon public streets and highways is
    not a mere privilege but is a RIGHT or liberty protected by the
    guarantees of Federal and State constitutions." Adams vs. City of
    Pocatello 416 P2d 46

    "One who DRIVES an automobile is an operator within meaning of the Motor Vehicle Act." Pontius vs. McClean 113 CA 452

    "The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely
    transports his own property and who transports no persons or property
    for hire or compensation." Statutes at Large California Chapter 412
    p.833

    "A citizen may have the right, under the 14th amendment to the
    Constitution of the United States, to travel and transport his property
    upon the public highways by auto vehicle, but he has no right to make
    the highways his place of business by using them as a common carrier for
    hire; such use being a privilege which may be granted or withheld by
    the state in its discretion, without violating the due process or equal
    protection clauses." In Re Graham 93 Cal App 88.

    "The license charge imposed by the motor vehicle act is an excise or
    privilege tax, established for the purpose of revenue in order to
    provide a fund for roads while under the dominion of the state
    authorities, it is not a tax imposed as a rental charge or a toll
    charge for the use of the highways owned and controlled by the state." –
    PG&E vs. State Treasurer, 168 Cal 420.

    "The same principles of law are applicable to them as to other
    vehicles upon the highway. It is therefore, the adaptation and use,
    rather than the form or kind of conveyance that concerns the courts."
    Indiana Springs Co. vs. Brown, 74 N.E. 615

    "The automobile is not inherently dangerous." Moore vs. Roddie, 180 P. 879, Blair vs. Broadmore 93 S.E. 632.

    "The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a
    livlihood 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…Berberian vs. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869,
    872

    "Truck driver's failure to be licensed as chauffeur does not
    establish him or his employer as negligent as a matter of law with
    respect to accident in which driver was involved, in absence of any
    evidence that lack of such license had any casual or causal connection
    with the accident…Bryant vs. Tulare Ice Co. (1954) 125 CA 2d 566

    "The RIGHT of the citizen to drive on the public street with freedom
    from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct
    associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL
    CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts." People vs.
    Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971)

    "The RIGHT to TRAVEL on the public highways is a constitutional RIGHT." Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss. 12 So 2d 784, 787.

    "The right to travel is part of the ‘liberty’ that a citizen cannot
    be deprived of without due process of law." Kent vs. Dulles 357 U.S.
    116, U.S. vs. Laub 385 U.S. 475

    "A citizen may have the right, under the 14th amendment to the
    Constitution of the United States, to travel and transport his property
    upon the public highways by auto vehicle, but he has NO right to make
    the highways his place of business by using them as a common carrier
    for hire; such use being a privilege which may be granted or withheld
    by the state in its discretion, without violating the due process or
    equal protection clauses." In Re Graham 93 Cal App 88.

    "CVC 17459. The acceptance by a resident of this state of a
    certificate of ownership or a certificate of registration of any motor
    vehicle or any renewal thereof, issued under the provisions of this
    code, shall constitute the CONSENT by the person that service of summons
    may be made upon him within or without this state, whether or not he
    is then a resident of this state, in any action brought in the courts
    of this state upon a cause of action arising in this state out of the
    ownership or operation of the vehicle." California Vehicle Code

    "CVC 17460. The acceptance or retention by a resident of this state
    of a driver's license issued pursuant to the provisions of this code,
    shall constitute the CONSENT of the person that service of summons may
    be made upon him within or without this state, whether or not he is
    then a resident of this state, in any action brought in the courts of
    this state upon a cause of action arising in this state out of his
    operation of a motor vehicle anywhere within this state." California
    Vehicle Code

    "When a person applies for and accepts a license or permit, he in
    effect knows the limitations of it, and takes it at the risk and
    consequences of transgression." Shevlin-Carpenter Co. vs. Minnesota, 218
    U.S. 57.

    • pseudolaw.com

      By what logic do rulings made in courts created by constitutions and legislatures supersede what created them? Legislatures determine judge's salaries. The purpose of the courts is to enforce the constitutions and legislation. There is no lawful right to ignore state highway legislation. Your quotes are misinterpreted and out of context. If you actually read the cases you will find they don't say what you think. For example Thompson v Smith clearly states cities may require and revoke driver's licenses.

    • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

      The trouble is that you haven't actually read the sources for any of those. You've copied and pasted a tract of excerpts somebody else provided. They don't mean what you want them to mean.

  • Derp

    http://justiceprose.8m.com/carl/carl41.html

    https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/travel.htm

    Ok, you know what, I don't have to do your job for you anymore, you obviously didn't study enough so everyone please go find out more on the subject then what the criminals themselves tell you.
    How many supreme court rulings do you need to see?????

    • pseudolaw.com

      Obviously the three SC rulings in the article have escaped your comprehension.

    • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

      You haven't provided any relevant Supreme Court rulings, so…one?

  • Jo blow

    The supreme Court has ruled that you don't need a license to travel 2014 & 2015

    • pseudolaw.com

      [Citation needed]

    • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

      Who said you need a license to travel?

  • Moorish Americans

    Louisiana State Law Defintion

    TITLE 32
    MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC REGULATION
    CHAPTER 1. LOUISIANA HIGHWAY REGULATORY ACT
    PART I. DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL AUTHORITY

    (16) "Driver" means every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.

    (92) "Vehicle" means every device by which persons or things may be transported upon a public highway or bridge, except devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. A bicycle or a ridden animal shall be a vehicle, and a trailer or semitrailer shall be a separate vehicle.

    §52. Driver must be licensed
    No person shall drive or operate any vehicle upon any highway within this state unless and until he has been issued a license to so do as required by the laws of this state nor shall any person permit or allow any other person to drive or operate any vehicle owned or controlled by him upon highways of this state unless and until such other person has been issued a license to so do as required by the laws of this state.
    Acts 1962, No. 310, §1.

    The Argument I would present to the Court is below

    If I establish for the record that I am a flesh and blood human being, in which the device is moved by my power. I have established the foundation in which my argument will determine the fact that my device is indeed not a "Vehicle" by the state law's definition of what a "Vehicle" is. Therefore I have not voilated any state laws. By the state's definition of a "Driver". I'm not a "Driver" either. By also establishing my status as a natural person/human being and not an "artificial person". I have fallen under the category of the "except" in the state definition of what a Vehicle. Therefore I have not violated any state laws and should be allowed to travel the roads using my human powered device with a license.

    http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml

    • Moorish Americans

      Need to make a correction to the above post…
      During my argument I wanted to typed
      "I have fallen under the category of the "except" in the state definition of what a Vehicle *is" and "Therefore I have not violated any state laws and should be allowed to travel the roads using my human powered device without a license." Sorry for any confusion… It's late and I'm sleepy.

      • pseudolaw.com

        Sorry but I blocked you – that's enough for now. We're more than familiar with all of the basic, introductory sovereign woo you speak – it's copy-pasted all over the internet. But is it true? Does it actually work? Or are all the people trying it ending up with fines or jail? Keep seeking and asking questions. Thanks for stopping by.

        • Moorish Americans

          I understand why you blocked me. I know my rights and to present a false name as me is not a lawful thing to do to anyone. In those cases they told the judge that their name was spelled incorrectly. That gave the judge jurisdiction over them by admitting it was their name just spelled in correctly. You blocked me because your not looking to have a debate. You believe that your concept of the law is right and exact when that's absolutely false. Status and Jurisdiction does play a role and bring up a bunch of court cases in which the defendant or plaintiff lost because of their ignorance of the law isn't a good bases for a argument.

          • pseudolaw.com

            No, I blocked you because you don't consider the evidence presented nor cite sources or evidence for your claims. When one actually looks at the law and decisions in the public record you find your arguments are considered frivolous. You can't just make up whatever you want and expect the whole world to bow to your opinion of the day. You seem to think you're onto something super secret and special but you're not the first and won't be the last to question the authority of government. The legislatures, courts and police have dealt with everything you speak of many times. And in the end they find that everyone on the recognized territory of the state / country is bound equally to the same laws, and you can't escape with silly word or name games.

          • Moorish Americans

            I don't consider the evidence? I replied like what twice? Then I read your comment and tried to reply, comes to find out I'm blocked. I was gonna ask some very difficult questions that I know you can't answer… but you know what? I'm not gonna waste any more of my time. I know my international human rights as an indigenous person. I don't have to follow useless state laws like being required to have a license or registration. My ancestors were here way before any of you foreign Europeans or your policies. Have a fun with those legal burdens foreigner….

          • pseudolaw.com

            Unless you can defeat the police and military you can be held to state and federal law just the same as everyone else. It's that simple. You can't enforce your law. No courts were created and no judges or police are paid to enforce your law.

    • pseudolaw.com

      All so-called living flesh-and-blood men and women, whether citizens, stateless, nameless or not are construed as natural persons under law. State statutes apply to both natural and artificial persons.

      • Moorish Americans

        Under what law? Every legal book I have ever read puts persons into one of two categories. Either Natural or Artificial persons. I know that laws and statues apply to both. That's not my argument. At law I established my status. Your status determines jurisdiction and how the procedure goes. A civiliter mortuus person can and may have their privileges violated. So if I came into the court screaming black power and claiming racism when legally black means your dead. I have already established to the court that I'm incompetent and should be appointed an attorney on my behalf. Who usually get the person they are speaking for to take plea deals.

        • pseudolaw.com

          The police and military enforce state and federal law. No-one can escape them. Where is evidence your theories work on the record? Where have you or anyone else won damages or recognition? How is an attorney managing your person for you a win at all? You could probably have more fun and more wins by playing the game creatively.

        • pseudolaw.com

          The police and military enforce state and federal law. No-one can escape them. Where is evidence your theories work on the record? Where have you or anyone else won damages or recognition? How is an attorney managing your person for you a win at all? You could probably have more fun and more wins by playing the game creatively.

        • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

          What. Sure, you're a natural person. That doesn't mean that you're "civiliter mortuus" (which doesn't exist in the United States) Being black doesn't make you legally or civilly dead. Having Bey in your name doesn't give you made-up treaty protections. All of this is complete garbage, and just because legal terms have fancy names doesn't mean you're impressing anybody smarter than a cabbage. Who's teaching you this crap?

      • Moorish Americans

        Also all capital letters in a person name does deal with their status. We are taught in grade school that a proper noun starts with a captial letter and the rest are lower cased. Making the excuse that there is no difference between all CAPs and a proper noun is a sign of incompetence. So I would never acknowledge my appellation to be given to me in all CAPs. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Am I to believe that the the Courts are incompetent by placing a proper noun in all CAPs? No. It's in all CAPs because it's not a proper noun. It's for a artificial/corporate person not natural person/human beings. I am never my straw man but I am able to speak for the staw man because my mom signed the birth certificate and I do carry information about the straw man. I am it's attorney… but it could never be until it's put into it's proper context.

        • pseudolaw.com

          The courts deal with you the same no matter the capitalization you use. Such arguments are considered frivolous. See these cases, for example.

        • Moorish Americans

          Be *me

    • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

      "Person" includes individual flesh and blood human beings, and always has. This is a frivolous argument with no basis in fact, logic, or history. As a side note, capitalization has never had any legal significance as applied to a name. John Doe, JOHN DOE, "Doe, John," and john_doe (as in a computer file), are all the same person as far as the law is concerned. All-capitals are frequently used to improve legibility and prevent errors by OCR equipment or mail sorting systems. In case you're about to bring it up, "capitis diminutio maxima" is an extinct aspect of law in the Roman Empire, and it predates the invention of capitalization.

      If you're referring to an automobile like a Honda Accord or a Ford F-150, then no, you are not moving it by your own power unless you get out and push. In normal operation, they are moved by the power of an internal combustion engine fueled by gasoline, or electric motors driven by batteries.

      You're certainly free to ride a bicycle, though.

  • Jim

    Why doesn't the mod respond directly to truthman below from four months ago…he actually nailed it. Everything used to attempt to convince people that licencing/etc is absolutely required always uses word sophistry, that can easily be picked apart by anyone who understands it. Truthman did a great job doing just that.

    • pseudolaw.com

      It's not a trick – everyone is required to obey the will of the People expressed through their representatives in the State legislature, as judged by courts created by the State constitution, and as enforced by agents of the State upholding their oath to the State constitution. No word games can stop the courts or police from being able to lawfully enforce State law.

      • Wiseguy

        You say things that are very misleading that I have to address. For example you have said;

        "….. obey the will of the People expressed through their representatives in the State legislature, …",

        A state citizen only has to "obey" a lawful order of enforcement agents of the state, if a state statute is found unconstitutional it's enforcement would be unlawful and a trespass upon a citizens rights.

        "Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right."
        Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). Also;

        "The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution." Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60; Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613

        And you have also said many times; "…. enforced by agents of the State upholding their oath to the State constitution ….".

        How about the required oath of ALL state officers, including ALL "executive" (police) officers under the United States Constitution?? Which says;

        "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;…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.
        The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and
        judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…"
        Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.

        According to your reasoning, the federal laws aren't worth the paper they are printed on!! Please correct me if I am seeing your line of reasoning in the wrong light….

        The federal law surrounding motor vehicles is extensive and I have the law facts, including but not limited to;18 USC 31, 23 USC Chapter 4 – Highway Safety Act of 1966, U.S. Code: Title 49 – TRANSPORTATION, 49 CFR 390.50 – FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS; GENERAL, that show the state is overstepping it's regulatory authority upon "private citizens" through it's police power and the DMV to embezzle millions of dollars from the general public! That would mean we have a conspiracy among state actors against the people who need to be charged with things like the Rico act for one!

        • Wiseguy

          Where the subject is one in which Congress or the state may act, a state may legislate unless Congress does so. Thereafter, a valid FEDERAL REGULATION of the subject SUPERSEDES conflicting STATE LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS and decisions and actions of state judicial or administrative bodies.

          If Congress has clearly demonstrated its intent to regulate the entire field, like MOTOR VEHICLES, then the state is powerless to enact subsequent legislation even if no conflict exists between state and federal law. This type of congressional action is known as federal Preemption of the field. Extensive federal regulation in a particular area does not necessarily result in federal preemption of the field. In determining whether a state may regulate a given field, a court evaluates the purpose of the federal regulations and the
          obligations imposed, the history of state regulation in the field,
          and the Legislative History of the state statute. If Congress has not preempted the field, then state law is valid, provided
          that it is CONSISTENT WITH, or supplements, the FEDERAL LAW.

          State laws that interfere with foreign and interstate commerce
          no more than is necessary in the proper exercise of the state's police power are valid as long as they DO NOT CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL REGULATIONS on the subject. Such laws must have some real relation to the objects named in them, in order to be upheld as valid exercises of the police power of the state.

          • pseudolaw.com

            If Congress has clearly demonstrated its intent to regulate the entire field, like MOTOR VEHICLES, then the state is powerless to enact subsequent legislation

            If that were true you could appeal state traffic charges to a federal court and win damages. That doesn't happen because it's not true.

          • Wiseguy

            While Congress cannot force the states to expend legislative or administrative resources in enforcing a federal law, states affected by federal laws must bow to them under the Supremacy Clause. (Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (2000))

          • pseudolaw.com

            Sure, but the federal government does not, in fact, claim the right to regulate the public highways in the states generally. You're mistaken. Try to find a case that directly addresses your concern and isn't vague or in questionable context, or take it up with the courts yourself next time you're charged with a state traffic offense.

          • Wiseguy

            Wow, I thought you knew about this topic.

            The FACT is the federal government does, in fact, claim the right to regulate the public roads and highways in the states. The Department of Transportation (DOT) is the federal government’s lead agency for planning and support of the nation’s land, air and sea-based travel systems. DOT develops, implements and enforces federal regulations GOVERNING USE of America’s ROADS and HIGHWAYS, airports and air corridors, railways and seaports. The corporate state is not the owner of these highways and common ways, or the land of which they are constructed. The Federal Department of Transportation (USDOT) has the priority claim and exorcise of enforcement power on all highways of every state in the union.

            According to the July 15, 1966, Public Works committee report on the House version of the bill (H.R. 13290), each STATE must “have a highway safety program APPROVED BY THE
            [Secretary of Commerce] . . . IN ACCORDANCE WITH uniform standards to be approved by the Secretary.”. President
            Johnson signed the Highway Safety Act into law on September 9, 1966.

            Passage of two related bills–the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (S 3005–PL 89-563) and the Highway Safety Act (S 3052–PL 89-564)–initiated a major campaign to increase the safety performance of motor vehicles, tires, DRIVERS and ROADS.

          • pseudolaw.com

            Yeah, the federal government regulates a few things related to vehicles. That's why I said the federal government doesn't regulate the public highways in the states generally. Can you find a federal court decision calling entire state vehicle codes unconstitutional or a violation of federal law, or saying the states may not enact vehicle codes such as they have universally? If not, don't believe it.

          • Wiseguy

            Do you think the federal government does not regulate the states mandated drivers license code?

            The facts are the feds regulate the states in everything the states do when it comes to motor vehicles including the licensing laws of every state! Under 23 USC 402 – §402. Highway safety programs, (a) Program Required.-, (B) improve driver performance, including- (iii) driver examinations (physical, mental, and driver licensing).

          • pseudolaw.com

            Unfortunately your or my interpretation means little in a court of law. Better look to case law or take it up with a judge yourself.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Title 23 requirements are tied to federal funding. I don't see any indication that states can be compelled to fulfill them. If they simply refuse to participate, they just don't get certain federal highway funds. This is similar to how the minimum drinking age was established: there's no federal law reaching into the states and forcing them to set it at 21; they merely forgo federal highway funds if they don't. The states still have the sovereign authority to set the drinking age to whatever they like.

          • pseudolaw.com

            This is rather informative re: Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Aid Highway Program: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IHt9Kpy5MiAP4pXTmZPUMCboUHKGjDrXw0dAt7GmVwo/pub

          • pseudolaw.com

            This is rather informative re: Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Aid Highway Program: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IHt9Kpy5MiAP4pXTmZPUMCboUHKGjDrXw0dAt7GmVwo/pub

        • pseudolaw.com

          if a state statute is found unconstitutional it's enforcement would be unlawful and a trespass upon a citizens rights.

          And how are state statutes found unconstitutional? When someone is charged, they gain standing to defend and bring an appeal. Until such time as someone successfully appeals and a law is clearly struck down by a superior court, it's valid.

          How about the required oath of ALL state officers, including ALL "executive" (police) officers under the United States Constitution?

          State police officers swear an oath to uphold the state constitution and laws created thereunder. They're paid by the state government to enforce state law. Their primary duty is to the state, not the federal government. Often the states make laws that are in fact contrary to federal law. Consider marijuana laws. State police don't enforce federal law in their own state. The federal government has to pay their own police to enforce federal law.

          Besides, no federal court since the early 1900's, if ever, has found state vehicle codes generally unconstitutional or contrary to federal law. Read the article again. There are three Supreme Court rulings that altogether say the states may regulate residents and non-residents whether acting commercially or not on the public highways, including requiring driver's licenses. How did you rationalize ignoring these federal Supreme Court rulings?

        • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

          Titles 18 and 49 of the U.S. Code are not applicable to private operators of automobiles and do not displace state transportation codes. Congress does not have the constitutional authority to regulate private intrastate travel.

          • Wiseguy

            You do realize that within the 42 U.S. Code sections there is a distinct difference in the definition of "motor vehicle" – PROPELLED or drawn BY MECHANICAL POWER, and "automobile" – vehicle that is PROPELLED BY FUEL, right? So, believe it or not, I AGREE with you when you say, "….. the U.S. Code is not applicable to private operators of automobiles ….", because it deals with motor vehicles, not automobiles.

            Also, not just (3) "commercial driver's license" is listed with the codes definitions section, § 31301, but another state (6) “driver’s license” is listed as well. So why would they put both a simple (6) “driver’s license” in the same commercial section as (3) "commercial driver's license"? Could it be that "driver" is the common commercial word…..Hmmm

            49 U.S. Code § 31301 – Definitions

            (3) "commercial driver's license" means a license issued by a State to an individual authorizing the individual to operate a class of commercial motor vehicles.

            (4) "commercial motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle used in
            commerce to transport passengers or property that—

            (6) “driver’s license” means a license issued by a State to an individual authorizing the individual to operate a motor vehicle on highways.

            (12) “motor vehicle” means a vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semitrailer PROPELLED or drawn BY MECHANICAL POWER and used on public streets, roads, or highways, but does not include a vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semitrailer operated only on a rail line or custom harvesting farm machinery.

            Let me not forget to list the above mentioned distinction in the definition of "automobile";

            49 U.S. Code § 32901 – Definitions

            (3) except as provided in section 32908 of this title, “automobile” means a 4-wheeled vehicle that is PROPELLED
            BY FUEL, or by alternative fuel, manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways and rated at less than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, ……

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Those definitions are not used in the state laws requiring private operator licensing. They're irrelevant to this article.

          • pseudolaw.com

            A "commercial" driver's license typically, if not always, refers to the size of the vehicle and the extra skill needed to operate it without killing people. It usually, if not always, has nothing to do with whether the driver is involved in commerce on the road. And yeah, as Ken mentioned, those definitions don't apply on a state charge. Notice at the top of the definitions it says "In this chapter"? That means the definitions only apply to charges brought under 49 USC Chapter 313. I can probably find 5 different definitions of "motor vehicle" in the USC. Anyway, it's irrelevant on a state charge. The definitions on a state charge can usually be found at the top of the chapter, title, etc. containing the section the charge is brought under. Some states go so far as to explicitly define "drive" and "driver". What state are you in? I can show you clearly in state law how the definitions fit everyone whether acting in commerce or not.

            As an example, here's NH:

            259:24 Drive. – "Drive," in all its moods and tenses, shall mean to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle, OHRV, or snowmobile.

            259:25 Driver. – "Driver" shall mean a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle as defined in RSA 259:60 or an OHRV or snowmobile.

            259:60 Motor Vehicle. – "Motor vehicle" shall mean:
            I. Except where otherwise specified in this title, any self-propelled vehicle not operated exclusively on stationary tracks, including ski area vehicles; …

            259:122 Vehicle. – "Vehicle" shall mean:
            I. Except as provided in paragraphs II and III, every mechanical device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a way, excepting devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks; …

            259:125 Way. – "Way" shall mean:
            I. Except as provided in paragraph II, the entire width between the boundary lines of any public highway, street, avenue, road, alley, park or parkway, or any private way laid out under authority of statute, or any such way provided and maintained by a public institution to which state funds are appropriated for public use, or any such way which has been used for public travel thereon, other than to and from a toll bridge or ferry, for 20 years, or any public or private parking lot which is maintained primarily for the benefit of paying customers; …

            Now interpret the following using the above definitions:

            263:1 License Required; Penalty. –
            I. No person, except those expressly exempted under RSA 263:25 or other provisions of this title, shall drive any motor vehicle upon any way in this state unless such person has a valid driver's license, as required under the provisions of this chapter, for the class or type of vehicle being driven. …

            http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/nhtoc/NHTOC-XXI.htm

          • pseudolaw.com

            A "commercial" driver's license typically, if not always, refers to the size of the vehicle and the extra skill needed to operate it without killing people. It usually, if not always, has nothing to do with whether the driver is involved in commerce on the road. And yeah, as Ken mentioned, those definitions don't apply on a state charge. Notice at the top of the definitions it says "In this chapter"? That means the definitions only apply to charges brought under 49 USC Chapter 313. I can probably find 5 different definitions of "motor vehicle" in the USC. Anyway, it's irrelevant on a state charge. The definitions on a state charge can usually be found at the top of the chapter, title, etc. containing the section the charge is brought under. Some states go so far as to explicitly define "drive" and "driver". What state are you in? I can show you clearly in state law how the definitions fit everyone whether acting in commerce or not.

            As an example, here's NH:

            259:24 Drive. – "Drive," in all its moods and tenses, shall mean to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle, OHRV, or snowmobile.

            259:25 Driver. – "Driver" shall mean a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle as defined in RSA 259:60 or an OHRV or snowmobile.

            259:60 Motor Vehicle. – "Motor vehicle" shall mean:

            I. Except where otherwise specified in this title, any self-propelled vehicle not operated exclusively on stationary tracks, including ski area vehicles; …

            259:122 Vehicle. – "Vehicle" shall mean:

            I. Except as provided in paragraphs II and III, every mechanical device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a way, excepting devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks; …

            259:125 Way. – "Way" shall mean:

            I. Except as provided in paragraph II, the entire width between the boundary lines of any public highway, street, avenue, road, alley, park or parkway, or any private way laid out under authority of statute, or any such way provided and maintained by a public institution to which state funds are appropriated for public use, or any such way which has been used for public travel thereon, other than to and from a toll bridge or ferry, for 20 years, or any public or private parking lot which is maintained primarily for the benefit of paying customers; …

            Now interpret the following using the above definitions:

            263:1 License Required; Penalty. –

            I. No person, except those expressly exempted under RSA 263:25 or other provisions of this title, shall drive any motor vehicle upon any way in this state unless such person has a valid driver's license, as required under the provisions of this chapter, for the class or type of vehicle being driven. …

            http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/nhtoc/NHTOC-XXI.htm

            Now you know how to prove everyone needs a driver's license to "operate an automobile" on the public roads.

  • fuster

    walk,

  • eddy

    Looks like a comment board populated with misinformation by common sheeple affected with acute cognitive dissonance. Wake up and think a little – were you born free or a slave ? Once you have gained the physical and cognitive abilities to produce thoughts and move your body you will have some decisions to make – do you want to work for yourself for your own benefit or would you like a combination of the 187,000 different federal, state, city, county, town and municipal corporations to hold your property, promissory notes, liberty and your children for you because you are too mentally incompetent to handle your own affairs ? Well you are in luck then the United States Corp has set up a program for you – be a citizen, public officer, franchisee of the US Corp and they will take your money and rights and write miles and miles of confusing statutes and codes filled with legalese for you to live by. Does a group of people who never met you give you your human rights because they had a meeting and decided to grant you some freedom ? Is that how it works for you ? Voluntary servitude …legal but not lawful or morally correct but hey nobody is going to stop you from being a slave and giving away your liberties, go for it, got a whole comment board filled here with people who need and want to be governed. Fundamental basic logic, deep breath, the Constitution gives you NO rights , you were BORN with human right given to you by your creator. Listen up for something that will sound absolutely absurd to most of you. Why were governments formed ? TO PROTECT AND MAINTAIN INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS , almost sounds funny huh ? Seems that 90% of the people on this board believe that the people are subordinate to the very governments that they created. ( ridiculous conclusion, illogical) Oh but for most of you here that is the TRUTH because you willingly, ignorantly made yourself a slave , voluntary servitude seems to be perfectly fine for most people commenting here , Some more basic shit you might want to know – two people live in you – a legal person and a private, natural person – important , those statuses have different rights , you decide what STATUS you want to be and claim and assert it OR be quiet and do as you are told and be administered to like the ward of the state that you declared you are. Unfortunate that people died for the rights that 90%of the population are too misinformed, apathetic and uneducated to give a fuck to learn and assert their rights, that would take a thing called "reading". Incredible how many are baffled by the basic travel question and licensing. One moron here wrote that the act of 1871 did not do away with the organic constitution, he said it acted on it. ( non sensical statement) Fuck stick that document stands on its own creating the territory of DC ; to have federal code/statute apply to you you must domicile in a federal territory AND consent . So to all you scholars who are filling out w 4 s and declaring yourselves citizens of a territory that you do not inhabit , continue, give them your money and liberty( not really money, that is another subject, research fiat currency, fractional reserve banking and educate yourself) and to all of you who buy gasoline, hey news flash, there is a tax on that which funds the highways, roads, etc. Your tax dollars (not income tax) paid for it all. Why did we make roads ? For the public who paid for it to use, right ? So why are you paying a toll on a road that your tax dollars paid for ? Oh that is because the state DMV wrote codes/statutes that apply to people doing commerce on a public roads . Those people engaged in commerce on public roads require a license and they are defined specifically as "drivers of motor vehicles" a "motor vehicle" is NOT an "automobile" and a private person is not a "driver". Legal is for citizens/franchisees/public officers – employees of a government // Lawful – common law is for private, natural people who take full responsibility for their lives and actions and do not require the approval of any body politic do anything. There are only 3 ways to commit a crime – hurt person or property or commit fraud in a contract. You know how you wound up in jail if there was no victim, you literally volunteered. You volunteered to be governed by registering, certifying and signing for things that you didn't know what the fuck meant and then you hired an officer of the court ( BAR registered attorney) to serve you up to get administered too . Good luck trusting authority and be happy to save %58 of your income that you keep after all the various taxes you pay. Reading these posts just confirms how tragically misinformed people are , USA is 5% of the world's population, go walk through disneyland or any walmart and see our diabetic, obese, Kardashian loving population and see a parking lot full of commercial drivers, oh wait they are not doing commerce and they do not need a license and the right to travel IS A HUMAN RIGHT and your rights cannot be turned into a privilege ….oh wait , yes they can, all you have to do is stay stupid. You are doing excellent so far. Ignore facts and have beliefs instead , lots of sheeple think that way, it is easy to be common, aim low, you will reach your goal !! Keep giving your kids vaccines and ignore fucking basic facts like that in the real world the chickenpox or mumps or any disease very rarely comes attached with preservatives hanging onto pig intestines in a hypodermic needle. Hey who cares if there is not a central reporting office for vaccine deaths, why count ? Oh yeah and if your 7 lb kid doesn't drop dead in 48 hrs ( all depends on where you are at as that subjective number will change to benefit the institution that poisoned your baby but no worries you cared and did research to see exactly what they were pumping into your 7 lb baby, right ? And mercury , although it is one of the most toxic substances known to man somehow if it is in a hospital setting it miraculously turns into a positive, just magic what these doctors can do, right ? Oh yes and then you did sign the waiver so if your kid dies you won't hold anyone responsible, excellent parenting , brilliant !!! Now go outside and get a good breath of barium and aluminum and them tell yourself that the incredible increase in respiratory diseases has absolutely nothing to do with bioengineering programs that have been going on for decades worldwide. Hey and just plain ignore the common core (mis) education that your child is receiving, hurry back to work, you piece of working capital. Ask yourself what is the comprehensive annual financial report for the corporation of where you live . Ask yourself why you don't know what the fuck that is. Then ask yourself why your 7 year old has an ipad that is cooking his/her reproductive organs and a cell phone and a playstation while he drinks red bull and takes Zoloft because he can't understand why 2 x 10 isn't 20 anymore because they learn common core curriculum, hopefully the bottle is not empty and he/she left a few for you…nighty nite

    • pseudolaw.com

      I'll stop you at the third sentence. "do you want to work for yourself for your own benefit or would you like a combination of the 187,000 different federal, state, city, county, town and municipal corporations to hold your property" – Unless you can defeat the police and military and overthrow the local sovereign state you can't operate outside governmental constitutions, laws and corporations beyond what the government in its discretion allows. Apply the same reasoning to the rest of your arguments. Magic words simply don't make the cops run away and leave you alone forever. When the government enforces its law you can't win damages unless they break their own rules. The rights you imagine don't exist because there is no physical force behind them.

    • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

      Could you put this in paragraphs?

    • Wiseguy

      eddy – Most of your points are right on target! Like when you said; "Those people engaged in commerce on public roads require a license and
      they are defined specifically as "drivers of motor vehicles" a "motor
      vehicle" is NOT an "automobile" and a private person is not a "driver".".

      The people are learning the truth on these topics. But it's a slow process.

      • pseudolaw.com

        If you're just going to completely ignore my responses and continue spewing sanctimonious bullshit you can leave.

  • david

    Look up the legal definitions of ordinance, statute, driving, motor vehicle, and automobile. Also person vs natural person.

    • pseudolaw.com

      On a vehicle code charge, where do you look for definitions? At the beginning of the vehicle code, at the top of the specific chapter, etc. Tell me your state and I'll show you the definitions that mean you need a driver's license to operate a private automobile on public roads.

  • jay h.

    U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary
    To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets
    No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name
    2
    2
    “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159; Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga.
    104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670
    “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456
    "The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways." -American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200
    Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions:
    "(6) Motor vehicle. – The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…" 10) The term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
    "A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received." -International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120
    The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’" -City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23
    NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232
    "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
    "The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of." Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). "…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…"
    State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
    Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82
    "The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st)
    Highways Sect.163 "the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all." – Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781
    “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210.
    "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. "Traffic infractions are not a crime." People v. Battle "Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right." Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969).

    if thats not enough go here http://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-necessary-to-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/

  • walts

    You state that "you have no recourse" In the US you do have recourse these are courts. You bring up the 10th amendment as default action that state receive the burden of the law as if the 9th and later part of the 10th did not exist but before the the 10th is the 9th amendment which Gives the PEOPLE enumerable right, lets also not forget Bill of Attainder or ex post facto, Article I, Section 10. Justice Samuel Chase defined ex post
    facto laws as:
    "1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the
    law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such
    action. " seeing how my great grand father,grand father and for a time my Father drove with out a license and was then a innocent act would fall right under the definition of a bill of "Attainder or ex post facto". Forcing people to get a licenses now with auto being found guilty of a crime is against the law. as far as traffic regulations MOST do not prohibit you from driving just being safe and non polluting (ie: not abridging any oneself rights, (ie: freedom of life liberty pursuit of happiness, property…..).

    • pseudolaw.com

      If you had actually read and thought about the article and sources you'd know automobiles were invented in the late 1800's and by 1920 no court could find any grounds to strike down a driver's license requirement. Where have your suggested arguments verifiably succeeded in a court of public record? When has any "free traveler" won damages when a state enforces its vehicle code created by the state legislature in accordance with the state constitution? Why believe with no evidence?

    • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

      "1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action."

      This means something a little different from how you've interpreted it. It means that you can't prosecute a specific act occurring before that kind of act became illegal. In your grandfather's case, this means that he couldn't be prosecuted for all the times he drove without a license before there was any requirement to have a license. When the law changed and licenses were required, that law now applied to him. If he drove without a license after the requirement had been made, he could be prosecuted for that.

      The problem with ex post facto laws is that legislatures could reach back in time for abusive reasons to punish somebody for obeying the law. New laws must only affect conduct that takes place after they're enacted. It can still become illegal to do something that used to be legal, but your grandfather could never be prosecuted for something he had already done while it was legal.

  • Russ Eastburn

    Question: If a person has charges brought against them for a DUI was I was in MAryland in 1985. Can the Maryland Department of Motor Vehicles Suspend or Revoke my driving privileges beyond what the legislature gave them power to do prior to an actual conviction? In other words I believe in 1985 if you were stopped for suspected driving under the influence and were given a test for alcohol and it was found to be .08 or higher you were required to surrender your License And that a temporary one would be issued for 7 days after which time your license/driving privileges would be suspended for a period of 120 days for a resident and according to the Maryland reciprocity with another State would be suspended for that which would be the penalty for a similar charge in your home State. In this case Minnesota which was at the time 180 days automatic surrender where alcohol intoxication is suspected. There were no aggravating circumstances in this case no other person or persons were injured or threat of harm or rights were violated and no property damage occurred and there was no careless or reckless charges brought. Okay so my question is under what law can Maryland, Minnesota or any other State turn that Civil law into a Criminal one. And how can they arbitrarily without a court order continue that Suspension beyond the initial period allowed under law by the State without My rights of Due process under the US Constitution and Civil Rights And that a Court bring an order after a conviction rendered and the Court passes sentence or orders a judgment which may be more time be added to the initial automatic civil suspension as mandated by State law. Or that if there is a conviction or pea of guilty that the court may order the license be revoked or suspended until a fine is paid this being what would be an allowed amount set forth by the legislature. Or usually both. But what if the charges were never satisfied in other words there was never a trial a bench warrant was issued but the court didn't notify the State of an order by the court to continue the suspension until which time the accused (Myself appeared)(After I called in 1992 the bench warrant was revoked) In 1984 I was a seriously practicing Chronic Alcoholic with no ties in Maryland . I had just got divorced had a nervous breakdown and attempted suicide and was hospitalized for 30 days at the VA in Austin TX. just 2 months before going to Maryland. I had 2 young children in Minnesota who before I left to find work in Texas I had been their primary caregiver and had been sober for 3 years minus a 2 day slip.. I was literally afraid for my life if I stayed I would die and my two little girls would grow up without a dad. So I left before my court dates even an arraignment (as I was only issued a citation and released from holding 4 hours after first being stopped). I shouldn't have left I know this but I did (and glad for it because if I hadn't there is no way I would have the life I have now). At the time I had a valid Texas License as I had moved there to find work make a home and then bring my family eventually. I had a suspension in Minnesota but had satisfied it days before I went to Texas. After 30 days I applied for a Texas Driver's License. they verified I ad met my obligations in Minnesota and issued me a Lic. When I was stopped in Maryland the officer impounded my Texas license telling me it wasn't valid because I was under suspension in Minnesota. I guess it didn't get put into the computer.. Anyway I returned to Minnesota and over the years attempting to get a Minnesota License has proven to be impossible. Maryland continues to tell Minnesota I'm suspended and noncompliant. MY family has always come first or I would have returned to Maryland. I have made an attempt every year to settle these minor misdemeanors ( (I was parked in a gas station and was about to give attend my keys so I wouldn't drive when a deputy pulled in and subsequently arrested me and charged me with a DUI even though the attendant verified I had arrange to stay there over night) I have offered to be extradited to turn myself in here in Minnesota to do whatever but that for me to pay to travel to Maryland I wasn't financially capable. So now all these years later and after losing my youngest daughter of 31 killed in an alcohol related accident in 2014. In 2012 an elder sister who herself had 36 years sober started drinking and was found in a coma in here home. She is now in a Nursing hoe and doesn't recognize me. She was the person that helped me get into treatment when I returned from Maryland. I would have a slip but have now been sober since May 18 1986. My sons or grandchildren have never seen me drink. I have a new wife I met in 1987 and Married in 1989 27 years this July she has never seen me drink anything with alcohol in it even cough medicine I lost both my parents although elderly would have probably lived but there lives were shortened due to alcoholism. My eldest son just finished 6 years in the Navy and also completed his 4 yr degree in criminology. He attended a police academy for Portsmouth VA while in the Navy and served on that force in a temporary position for 2 years. He was hired by the State of Texas in Aug of 2015 . The FBI conducted a background search on him as well as myself and his mother. He completes The Texas State Patrol training this June 17 2016 . And I his father who raised him to respect the law to the letter will not be there because I don't have a driver's license . How ironic it should be Texas the last place I held a valid License all those decades ago. I have never stolen anything, I have never committed any crime other than the DUI's when my disease was active and in control of my judgement. I have never struck another person or brought harm in anyway to another person. Yet my right to travel freely of my own accord has been denied me. Can they do this?

    • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

      I think you'd be better off getting a licensed attorney.

  • http://ait.energygoldrush.com Dale W. Smith

    You legal types (by the way, that's as far as I choose to go on the name calling front, despite the fact that those of us that love and aspire to freedom are constantly referred to as "kooks", "crackpots", etc.) seem to have an aversion to freedom and liberty based on the way you seem to derive great joy from "proving" us wrong in our efforts to be free. You always make good arguments, but then again, isn't that a part of the legal profession? For example, a defense lawyer's job is to defend his client even if they know they are guilty by convincing the jury that they're not. So, really being convincing is not what counts and is probably why there was a prohibition of "titles of nobility" (esquire) in the original constitution.

    What's always missing is the logic behind your argument…

    This country was founded on individual liberty and freedom. The federal government was formed to protect them. The constitution was written to insure that those in the federal government didn't move away from their responsibility to do such. Since it was the states that initiated these things and the formulation of the government, being keenly aware of the importance of freedom and liberty, it only made sense to leave certain determinations to the states. What wasn't expected at that time I'm sure, was for the states to eventually become as "statist" in nature as our federal government and as effective in diminishing the very rights originally fought for.

    Does any human being have natural authority or jurisdiction over another?
    Does a group of humans, by sheer numbers now have natural authority or jurisdiction over another human being?
    Absent the forfeiture of rights due to irresponsible behavior causing injury to persons or property, what facts or evidence exists to prove that the laws of a state apply to an individual simply because they are physically located there?

    • pseudolaw.com

      The simplest fact, readily observed in reality, is police and military hold everyone on the recognized territory of the local nation-state to state and federal law, and their ability to do so is recognized under international law. They don't demand or require your consent. Courts admit this, founders admit this, presidents admit this. Right or wrong, law is only as good as the ability to physically enforce it.

      I used to believe magic words and papers would make the police leave me alone, too. I'm still cleaning up the mess it made in my life. Thankfully I was lucky and didn't end up in jail or with a criminal record like many achieve before they wise up.

      • http://ait.energygoldrush.com Dale W. Smith

        Once again, that's sounds convincing to most, but you know as well as I do that what you said proves nothing and sought to sidestep or complicate things by introducing irrelevant subject matter.
        All laws DO NOT apply to EVERYONE. That is a fact. You also know that the lack of PROOF of jurisdiction = the LACK of jurisdiction. Before there can be a violation of law there has to proof that they apply.

        What FACTS do you have to PROVE that my states traffic laws apply to me?

        • pseudolaw.com

          You can sometimes evade the law and "win" a dismissal of minor charges if you waste enough public time and money (paid by your fellow man's taxes) with pseudolegal arguments, but if/when the state decides to enforce its law you have no remedy. You can't win damages. What court will you use? What police will you call? Who will free you from jail? The only thing that can actually excuse you from state and federal law is to overthrow the entire country. How many fighter jets do you have?

          Murder statutes are created by the state legislature just the same as the traffic code. Do you really think they'll "just let you go" if they "can't prove jurisdiction" if you go on a killing spree and they arrest you? Don't be naive. That would be chaos.

    • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

      Does any human being have natural authority or jurisdiction over another?

      There's no such thing as "natural authority or jurisdiction" in the laws of men. Authority and jurisdiction are held by force and/or cooperation.

      Does a group of humans, by sheer numbers now have natural authority or jurisdiction over another human being?

      No, but sheer numbers are very useful for getting authority or jurisdiction in practice.

      Absent the forfeiture of rights due to irresponsible behavior causing injury to persons or property, what facts or evidence exists to prove that the laws of a state apply to an individual simply because they are physically located there?

      Because the state forcibly applies them to you whether you like them or not. That's it. Unless you have a plan to overwhelm and defeat that force consistently over a long period of time, you're going to have to deal with it some other way.

      • https://disqus.com/home/channel/provaxvsantivaxadebate/ On Its Own Merits

        Re: the sheer numbers thing.

        Of course, historically before succession…the ruler was the ruler because…..well…um…..do YOU have a bigger army than he does?

        • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

          Well, uh, yeah, my army's way bigger, I mean, I'd overthrow him like that, but you know, I don't wanna get it dirty…

  • Byron

    Look mf, it's breaking an amendment. Simple as that.
    You're allowed by the supreme law of the land to travel freely, without restrictions or a fee.
    Will we need to have a license for our wives to use a damn blender, or a license to use a fucking lawn mower?! Just because it has a motor?

    • pseudolaw.com

      What amendment? Where has a constitutional court agreed with your interpretation?

      If your blender or lawnmower is self-propelled and you ride it on the public roads, yeah, it's probably covered by the state vehicle code. Read it and find out.

    • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

      Will we need to have a license for our wives to use a damn blender, or a license to use a fucking lawn mower?! Just because it has a motor?

      YES! Mwahahahaha!!

  • ajewon615

    I know for an absolute truth that some Moorish Americans,not sovereign citizens travel without driver's license some have been stopped and let go some have been to court and had there violations dismissed and they still travel to this day without a license. Proofs online try YouTube.

    • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

      I'm sure some have been let go, and some have probably had their violations dismissed. There are many reasons police might back off or drop the issue. They might be too tired to deal with a Moor's claims of absolute immunity from prosecution, they might be nervous about violence (à la West Memphis), or they might be unwilling to bet that the Moor's legal-sounding arguments are invalid. It happens to freemen, sovereigns, and plumbers, too. As for the judges, they have similar discretion and may dismiss a minor violation if the defendant is jamming up the court with frivolous motions or speeches. A Moor may put up a vigorous defense on other grounds that the state genuinely can't overcome, or the witnesses against them may not show up.

      • ajewon615

        The excuses that you're making don't make sense to most of us that know the so-called courts and the magistrates that sit on the bench or Bank because the etymology of the word bench is Bank. We know for a fact that they would try to squeeze you Dry of every fiat that you have in your pocket all they care about is getting a Fiat. Active Moors are coming with the truth in the form of writs and Affidavits. I know of at least one Moor here in Cleveland that's have the courtroom cleared when he made his special appearance in front of the judge / Magistrate. We're awake now. Peace.

        • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

          If you say so, buddy.

        • pseudolaw.com

          The courts and police have a degree of discretion. Consider that having something withdrawn by a prosecutor or dismissed by a judge for discretion is not the same as having an enforceable right with the ability to claim damages when the state enforces its law. Where has a Moor or anyone else won damages when the state or federal government enforces state or federal law that hasn't been struck down? Why can't they enforce a claim for false arrest when they're stopped or arrested for not having a driver's license? It's because the rights they think they have don't actually exist within the system. If/when the government wants to affect them, it can and will.

    • pseudolaw.com

      So why can't they win damages when the state enforces its law? It's because the government has discretion to dismiss stuff, but there is no actual right to ignore laws made by the state legislature in accordance with the state constitution. Dismissals don't prove anything other than that the court or prosecutor is lazy or inexperienced or has an ulterior motive.

  • pseudolaw.com

    What's the tl;dw?

  • kfunk937

    With advance apologies (to @pseudolaw:disqus and @Glaug:disqus) for my asking to entertain a semi-OT, entirely tangential-to-this-post set of queries: Does Freedom of Movement also apply to intrastate travel? Alternatively, are there State-level constitutional equivalents to Freedom of Movement that address intrastate travel (or interstate, for that matter)? In my defence I offer that FoM appears in the post and hope that the questions may present a breather from jousting with your regular commentariate. (BTW, fascinating.)

    Hypothetical case (okay not really, but also not me) is how a state probationer’s travel may be restricted under the law versus how it plays out in common practice. In this case, a graduate student and current special education teacher under probation (Ohio OBI/DUI) has been granted limited driving privileges for work and medical reasons by the court, but the probation officer indicates this person may not leave the county (which the judge has already allowed) and further may not seek work elsewhere nor relocate for employment purposes*. The probationer has nearly completed the advanced degree and local employment opportunities are limited, if available at all (with the current employer projected to enter layoffs). Fwiw, the PO also meddles in the probationer’s medical matters, which strikes me rather like practising medicine without a license, but that’s another issue.

    In general, I’d tend to recommend keeping a low profile with one’s PO. However, this battle seems to me to be one worth fighting, as the stakes are quite high, but only if the battle stands some chance of a non-pyrrhic victory. Essentially I’m wondering if the PO is overstepping their authority. I’m also aware that probationers' rights are conditionally limited (e.g., privacy), at least temporarily, so are nearly as restricted as are those of the incarcerated.

    *It seems to me that transferring into another county’s probation jurisdiction should be a relatively trivial matter. I found very little in the way of comprehensible references using g__gle, and those primarily related to an old GA case of someone banned from all but his home county, who ended up leaving the state entirely.

    I’m not seeking legal advice on the internet, just thinking some things through and trying to possibly help someone else do the same. If there's merit along these lines, it may be worth pursuing with local representation. That IANAL is likely also painfully obvious.

    I appreciate any insights offered (and am okay with a rebuff, as well).

    [ETA: link to GA case and end result of same]

    • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

      Case law has at least inferred that the right to travel both between and within states is included in "liberty" as described in the 14th Amendment, subject to regulation, but I'm not aware of a particular case where a law was struck down or damages awarded specifically on that basis. At least in theory, any law that didn't justly balance the right to travel within a state with public safety and other legitimate state interests could be readily struck down as a violation of the right to travel.

      (These 'inferred rights' are described as "substantive due process rights," BTW.)

      THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, I AM NOT A LAWYER, IF YOU WANT LEGAL ADVICE FROM ME YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR ME TO GO TO LAW SCHOOL FIRST AND THAT'S JUST THE UP FRONT COST, HOO BOY:

      As for probation officers, their power differs from state to state, but they are not judges. Their job is to execute the decision of the Court, not to modify it. If the sentencing judge has issued an order that the probationer is permitted to leave the county, then they are permitted to leave the county. Period. The probation officer is forbidden to shorten sentences, extend sentences, excuse probationers from the conditions of probation, or impose new conditions on them. If a probation officer is attempting to usurp the power of the court, then the probationer should direct their attorney to contact the sentencing judge. Judges do not like being undermined, and a PO who openly defies the Court after being talked to is gonna have a bad time.

      EDIT: The probationer is probably still required to notify the probation officer of their travel, but permission is not the officer's to grant or deny provided that the probationer's travel is consistent with the court's decision. That is, if the court says you can travel for work, then you may legitimately be required to demonstrate to your PO that your travel is work-related. Some forms of travel do require the probation officer's permission and handling, such as actually relocating out of the state or county. These are special cases where the probationer may be SOL.

      • kfunk937

        Hiya, Ken. Thanks for your thoughts. I'm going to ask to see the written order from the court setting probation terms. (In another case of which I'm aware, the judge's instructions were not formalised by court order, so were unenforceable. It's worth checking whether what was said in court matches what may be proved.) Pissing off one's PO can be risky, but pissing off a judge is even more so.

        I can't send you (or me) to Law School, but am not averse to fronting a few brews, if the opportunity should arise. 🙂

        • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

          Sweet! I added an edit there, since I realized that relocating is a much trickier subject and POs generally have greater power to deny a probationer permission to move. This would be an interesting civil rights case, but I wouldn't anticipate a victory. It would be a hard sell that such restrictions during probation violate due process when the court probably had the option to forbid the probationer from moving out of a particular 8×12' jurisdiction instead.

  • mymo

    RCW 46.25.050

    Commercial driver's license required—Exceptions, restrictions, reciprocity.

    (1) Drivers of commercial motor vehicles must obtain a commercial driver's license as required under this chapter. Except when driving under a commercial learner's permit and a valid driver's license and accompanied by the holder of a commercial driver's license valid for the vehicle being driven, no person may drive a commercial motor vehicle unless the person holds and is in immediate possession of a commercial driver's license and applicable endorsements valid for the vehicle they are driving. However, this requirement does not apply to any person:

    (a) Who is the operator of a farm vehicle, and the vehicle is:

    (i) Controlled and operated by a farmer;

    (ii) Used to transport either agricultural products, which in this section include Christmas trees and wood products harvested from private tree farms and transported by vehicles weighing no more than forty thousand pounds licensed gross vehicle weight, farm machinery, farm supplies, animal manure, animal manure compost, or any combination of those materials to or from a farm;

    (iii) Not used in the operations of a common or contract motor carrier; and

    (iv) Used within one hundred fifty miles of the person's farm; or

    (b) Who is a firefighter or law enforcement officer operating emergency equipment, and:

    (i) The firefighter or law enforcement officer has successfully completed a driver training course approved by the director; and

    (ii) The firefighter or law enforcement officer carries a certificate attesting to the successful completion of the approved training course; or

    (c) Who is operating a recreational vehicle for noncommercial purposes. As used in this section, "recreational vehicle" includes a vehicle towing a horse trailer for a noncommercial purpose; or

    (d) Who is operating a commercial motor vehicle for military purposes. This exception is applicable to active duty military personnel; members of the military reserves; members of the national guard on active duty, including personnel on full-time national guard duty, personnel on part-time national guard training, and national guard military technicians (civilians who are required to wear military uniforms); and active duty United States coast guard personnel. This exception is not applicable to United States reserve technicians.

    (2) No person may drive a commercial motor vehicle while his or her driving privilege is suspended, revoked, or canceled, while subject to disqualification, or in violation of an out-of-service order. Violations of this subsection shall be punished in the same way as violations of RCW 46.20.342(1).

    (3) The department must, to the extent possible, enter into reciprocity agreements with adjoining states to allow the waivers described in subsection (1) of this section to apply to drivers holding commercial driver's licenses from those adjoining states.

    • pseudolaw.com

      Great, let us know when you win in court or find someone who has. By the way, here's why you need a license whether acting in commerce or not:

      RCW 46.04.197 Highway means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel.

      RCW 46.04.320 "Motor vehicle" means every vehicle that is self-propelled and every vehicle that is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails. …

      RCW 46.04.670 "Vehicle" includes every device capable of being moved upon a public highway and in, upon, or by which any persons or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, including bicycles. …

      RCW 46.20.001 License required—Rights and restriction.
      (1) No person may drive a motor vehicle upon a highway in this state without first obtaining a valid driver's license issued to Washington residents under this chapter. …

      Other than the fact that WA appears to distinguish itself from some other states by not defining "drive" or "driver" – for that definition we may have to look to the common law of the state traffic court – it's pretty clear, wouldn't you say?

      http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=46

    • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

      What point are you trying to make? This article isn't about commercial drivers.

  • mymo

    item (c) below shows if you are in a recreational vehicle in WA state you are exempt

  • mymo

    WAC 308-100-210

    Recreational vehicle—Definition.

    For the purposes of RCW 46.25.050 (1)(c), the term "recreational vehicle" shall include vehicles used exclusively for noncommercial purposes which are:

    (1) Primarily designed for recreational, camping, or travel use;

    (2) Towing a horse trailer; or

    (3) Rental trucks having no more than two axles (one steering and one drive axle) used strictly and exclusively to transport personal possessions.

    • pseudolaw.com

      So some recreational vehicles are excluded from commercial driver's licenses, which only apply to certain large, heavy vehicles. That's nice. Now how do you get around the definitions in RCW 46.04 and related requirement of RCW 46.20.001 wherein:

      (1) No person may drive a motor vehicle upon a highway in this state without first obtaining a valid driver's license issued to Washington residents under this chapter.

      Where have the courts agreed with your apparent interpretation that those acting non-commercially are exempt from 46.20.001?

      Do you think you can ignore 46.16A.030, too?

      (2) It is unlawful for a person to operate any vehicle on a public highway of this state without having in full force and effect a current and proper vehicle registration and displaying license plates on the vehicle.

  • Pingback: License to Drive | Arts & Culture()

  • FactsVSFiction

    2. The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental right of which the public and Natural Beings cannot be rightfully deprived. Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago 337 Illinois 200, 169 NE 22, ALR, Ligare v. Chicago 139 ILL. 46, 28 HE 934, Boone v. Clark 214 SW 607, 25 AM jur (1st), Highways, sec. 163:
    3. The right to Park or Travel is part of the Liberty of which the Natural Person, citizen cannot be deprived without “due process of law” under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116, 125:
    4. The Right of a citizen to Travel upon the public highways and to transport one’s property thereon, either by carriage or automobile, is not a mere privilege, which a City may prohibit or permit at will, but a com- mon right, which he / she has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579:
    5. State Police Power extends only to immediate threats to public safety, health, welfare, etc., Michigan v. Duke 266 US, 476 Led. At 449: which driving and speeding are not. California v. Farley Ced. Rpt. 89, 20 CA3d 1032 (1971):
    6. The State is prohibited from violating substantive rights. Owens v. City, 445 US 662 (1980); and it can not do by one power (eg. Police power) that which is, for example, prohibited expressly to any other such power (eg. Taxation / Eminent Domain) as a matter of law. US and UT v. Daniels, 22 p 159, nor indi- rectly that which is prohibited to it directly. Fairbanks v. US 181, US 283, 294, 300:
    7. Traveling in an automobile on the public roads was not a threat to the public safety or health
    and constituted no hazard to the public, and such a traveler owed nothing more than “due
    care” (as regards to tort for negligence) to the public and the owner owed no other duty to the
    public (eg. State), he / she and his / her auto, having equal rights to and on the roadways / high-
    ways as horses and wagons, etc.; this same right is still substantive rule, in that speeding, running stop signs, traveling without license plates, or registration are not threats to the public safety, and thus, are not arrestable offenses. Christy v. Elliot, 216 I 131, 74 HE 1035, LRA NS 1905 – 1910: California v. Farley 98 CED Rpt. 89, 20 CA 3d 1032 (1971).
    8. Under The United States Republic’s Constitutional system of Government and upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control one’s conduct to others, leaving one the sole judge as to all that affects oneself. Mugler v. Kansas 123 US 623, 659 – 60:
    9. Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation, which would abrogate them. Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436, 125:
    10. The claim and exercise of Constitutional Rights cannot be converted into a crime. Miller v. Kansas 230 F 2nd 486, 489:
    11. For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party (Corpus Delicti) There can be no sanction or penalty imposed on one because of this Constitutional right. Sherer v. Cullen 481 F. 945:
    12. If any Tribunal (court) finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over a person and subject matter, the case must be dismissed. Louisville v. Motley 2111 US 149, 29S. CT 42. “The Accuser Bears the Burden of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”.

    • pseudolaw.com

      You might want to actually read these cases and research the various concepts mentioned in them because they don't mean what you think they mean. Most or all of these citations are misquoted or misunderstood. Thompson v Smith, for example, clearly states licenses can be required, and it is only necessary that regulation not be applied too arbitrarily:

      The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking under rules of general application permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to others of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions.

      There are few to no unlimited rights. All can be restricted reasonably for public safety. Unfortunately many people are duped by copy-paste jobs like yours when they're blindly spread around the net without proper examination, which is the reason for this blog and article.

      I may come back and update this to address some of the other citations later.

      • Jason Parsons

        "There are few to no unlimited rights. All can be restricted reasonably for public safety."

        Bullshit. This is not a Democracy. This is a Republic. It doesn't matter at all what everyone else wants. ONLY THE LAW MATTERS!

    • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.
  • Thumbtack Mike

    completely wrong. the subject matter of driving is Transportation:

    The removal of goods or persons from one place to another, by a carrier. See Railroad Co. v. Pratt, 22 Wall. 133, 22 L. Ed. 827; Interstate Commerce Coin’n v. Brimson, 154 U. S. 4 17. 14 Sup. Ct. 1125, 38 L. Ed. .1047; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 100, 5 Sup. Ct. S26, 29 L. Ed. 158.

    Law Dictionary: What is TRANSPORTATION? definition of TRANSPORTATION (Black's Law Dictionary)

    http://thelawdictionary.org/transportation/

    all 'vehicles" are dependant on "transportation"

    • pseudolaw.com

      Dictionaries aren't binding on states or state courts. On a state vehicle code charge the definitions can usually be found at the top of the vehicle code or the subchapter, with the definitions nearer to the section taking precedence. If the legislature doesn't define a word or phrase the state courts decide at common law. The state legislature is the highest lawmaking body in the state and can create, amend or repeal any state laws and definitions provided they aren't struck down as a violation of the state constitution by the courts. The courts can't ignore legislated definitions. Once a definition is legislated the courts lose power to redefine it.

      • Thumbtack Mike

        who said anything about a dictionary? this is precedent case law. now go look up the Illinois vehicle code definition of "Commerce"

        yet, law systems are HIGHLY dependant on dictionaries. Blacks for exame… Bouviers etc. Or these were all written and cited innumberable time in vain?

        a "vehicle" is defined by the word "transportation" which is rarely defined in the code itself ( just as "income" is no where defined by the IRC) But the whole thing turns on the DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION

        • pseudolaw.com

          Why would I look up the definition of commerce when it isn't used even once in the driver's license requirement, plate/registration requirement, or insurance requirement sections?

        • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

          who said anything about a dictionary? this is precedent case law. now go look up the Illinois vehicle code definition of "Commerce"

          Can you cite any decision where the terms "drive," "driver," "vehicle," "motor vehicle," or the verb "transport" have been unequivocally tied to commerce and only to commerce in the context of private driver licensing? (Hint: The answer is no.)

          yet, law systems are HIGHLY dependant on dictionaries. Blacks for exame… Bouviers etc. Or these were all written and cited innumberable time in vain?

          Do you realize that Bouvier's hasn't been updated in a century? Do you realize that Black's has been updated about ten times to keep up with the changing and developing meanings of words in the courts? Do you realize that the private publishers of these dictionaries do not have lawmaking power, but only the power to suggest useful definitions consistent with previous decisions? These dictionaries are cited when the court chooses to use them as a useful reference and ignored when it does not.

          a "vehicle" is defined by the word "transportation" which is rarely defined in the code itself ( just as "income" is no where defined by the IRC) But the whole thing turns on the DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION

          This is false. "Vehicle" is defined using the verb "transport," not the noun "transportation." The definition of "transportation" doesn't become implicit in every use of the verb "transport." If it did, you'd have absurdities like another poster inadvertently making circular claims about vehicle carrier carrier carrier […] carriers.

        • pseudolaw.com

          The definition of vehicle in the Illinois Vehicle Code does use the word "transported" which isn't defined. What that means is the traffic court decides what it means, not you. Have you seen any indication from the courts that the definition is meant to apply solely to commercial vehicles?

  • Pingback: Google()

  • Pingback: Your Right to Travel - Humans Are Stupid()

  • Developer Bayman

    What I think is bs is I lost my Id and they won't take my birth certificate and social card they say that it's not good enough what the fuck I can hardly walk I'll have to sue the state for me having to walk myself into a wheel chair because 2 forms of ID wasn't good enough

    • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

      Sounds like you're in an awful spot — do you have any way of getting a federal ID like a passport to start climbing the ID ladder? What would happen if you were able to travel those 1,600 miles? Would it be easy to renew an ID you already have there?

      EDIT: Are they saying you need a new copy of your birth certificate? Your birth state should be able to mail that to you if that's the problem.

  • Developer Bayman

    I think drivers license should be a thing but it should be more about just meeting you and realizing your not incompetent and maybe a fee not this impossible red tape Bullshit…..man guys I'm really upset about this I don't know what to do I called the state that last had my Id but they said it was to old I cant go 1600 miles to get a id that's stupid and the state I'm in said I have to have one of my parents I'd me……I haven't seen or spoke to my parents in 20 yrs wtf!!

  • Karl Martell

    It is the same with New Jersey "justifiable need" clause in the Handgun Permit Law. All such cases get denied certiorari. What has happened with with automobiles may soon happen to firearms.

  • Jason Parsons

    This whole thing is complete crap!

    We do not live in a Democracy, we live in a Republic! It is fundamentally unconstitutional to pass laws that penalize people BEFORE they commit a crime. Ever hear of due process? Anything repugnant to the Constitution can be ignored with impunity.

    The fact is, local police and judges will almost always railroad you through their kangaroo court and you will have to appeal it, where they will almost always find an excuse of some sort to dismiss or discharge the case and deny ou a jury trial or the opportunity to establish precedence. They will do anything to avoid validating you so you will probably never actually "win" but you will be able to make a few grand suing the people responsible later. Put enough liens on enough bonds and sue the bastards directly a few times and they will start ignoring you, and your tagless car, like you don't exist.

    • pseudolaw.com

      It is fundamentally unconstitutional to pass laws that penalize people BEFORE they commit a crime.

      Where is that in the Constitution? Has any court agreed as relates to State vehicle legislation, or at all?

      Anything repugnant to the Constitution can be ignored with impunity.

      Yes, provided a superior court agrees with your interpretation that a thing is repugnant. So where have the federal courts said State vehicle laws, or other laws that "don't require harm", are generally unconstitutional?

      you will be able to make a few grand suing the people responsible later

      Can you cite an example in the public record of anyone winning damages when a State enforces its vehicle laws that haven't been struck down? Don't you think the States would repeal their vehicle codes to save money if they were truly acting unlawfully and liable? Word would spread very quickly. People aren't as dumb as you think, especially when they can make easy money.

      Put enough liens on enough bonds

      UCC-1 financing statements, aka liens, require the express consent and authentication (signature) of the debtor on a security agreement. See UCC 9. Some states like Georgia prescribe up to a year in jail and a $10,000 fine for each false lien, and a number of people have been sentenced to several years in prison for liens. If you enjoy liberty, don't play with them.

      • Jason Parsons

        More bullshit scare tactics.

        You may want this to be a democracy where everyone decides your life for you. I prefer my individual liberty in a Republic and the sovereign power to establish government by consent to protect my rights, not restrict them without due process if I have committed a crime. It is funny how you think your servants can command you instead of the other way around. Many a slave would have wanted you as a master.

        The bullshit you spew is the convolutions that lawyers and the courts have cooked up to make themselves seem necessary. They purposely confuse everything to make it hard for honest Americans to understand their rights in the eyes of the law. Fact is, we don't need lawyers at all. We just need to understand that they cannot move forward lawfully without jurisdiction. Since they cannot prove jurisdiction unless you give it too them it is all a bunch of revenue generating bullshit anyway that doesn't even apply to the average Joe. Will that get you out of everything? Nope, because the crooked bastards won't follow the law, but, if you pursue it you might eventually get a fair judge and a fair hearing so you can beat the bitches at their own game. I've done it but there is a risk of tyranny and it just isn't worth the risk any longer.

        Until then, I carry a gun. Why the fuck would I walk into their court with their judge and their prosecutor all payed by the same corp. the cop is knowing they are going to break the law and violate my rights? Fuck that. Give me liberty or give me death. I'll not play their stupid games anymore. We have the right to defend ourselves to the death if we are attacked and S.C.O.T.U.S. has ruled on multiple occasions that a false arrest is akin to any other felony including assault and battery. Any time they stop you it is an arrest, and if they don't have a warrant, if you aren't violent constituting a breach of the peace, or actually witness you commit a crime by creating an injured party/victim, it is a false arrest and can lawfully be met with deadly force.

        To fully understand this reference "A Treatise on Arrest and False Imprisonment" and the following cases.

        “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

        “An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

        “When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

        “These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

        “An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

        “Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

        “One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

        You really should visit the area between Kingman Arizona and Las Vegas Nevada. You could learn a lot from the American Indian population around here like; How to drive without license, tags, or insurance anywhere you want, any time you want, and however you want as long as you do not cause harm to another or their property. How to tell a pig to go fuck themselves when they try to apply statutes, codes, policies, etc… on people that aren't bound to them by contract. How to do things like make and sell your own brand of liquor without a license, grow and sell pot with total immunity, or how to gamble lawfully and even open a casino on your private land. How to acquire allodial titles, and so forth. You could learn a lot. I know I have and I haven't lost a case in 20 years or more.

        People, you don't need all that legal bullshit or a liar lawing to you. All you need to know is your rights and how to protect them, even if sometimes that means shooting at people that try to oppress or molest them. The cost of freedom is death because once you acquire freedom there will always be someone there trying to take it from you until you die. It all depends on what it is worth to you and what you are willing to do to keep it. If you want easy and security, get thrown in prison. Life isn't safe and cannot be legitimately regulated to make it that way. All along they have told us that the laws they make are for our safety and our benefit. If that were the case we would be safe and have benefitted by now. They do this shit for one single reason, to control you. It may not seem like much but that's the idea, to incrementally whittle away rights until one day we wake up in a prison state and can't figure out how we got there or how to get out.

        • pseudolaw.com

          In a republic the people's representatives make the laws, just like State governments do when they make vehicle codes.

          According to the federal Supreme Court you can be lawfully arrested for any violation of statute law, even minor municipal bylaws. Check out the full text of Atwater v City of Lago Vista. State laws vary and can limit this for anything within their purview, though.

          Just because you live in an area full of indians who have special rights with limitations doesn't mean you also necessarily enjoy them.

          Being left alone or having a charge dismissed doesn't prove a right exists, just that the government thinks there's a better way to spend taxpayer resources than to continually harass a guy who doesn't want a Driver's License but doesn't really disturb people too much and is happy to continue participating in society in other ways, such as by buying computers, internet, cars, gas, food, and other corporate products where income and sales tax are generated.

          Where can we find the cases you have initiated and won in the public record? Dismissals are not wins. Dismissals are "you can go for now but we'll be back." Where's the judgment that removes all doubt?

    • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

      Have fun storming the castle!

  • Anonymous

    First off, Kudos for putting up with all of these nutjobs.

    Second off, what concerns me, and probably concerns most of the 'nutjobs' with enough sense to do their own research, is that you haven't updated the original post. You refuted dozens of people discussing definitions, but didn't include that in the original topic to keep others from repeating it. ..which they did.

    Third off, I am a bit concerned that you keep referring to international law, but never refer to common law. By definition any international law can only be as valid as the undersigned treaty to which the sovereign nation-state has ascribed itself. Any and all blanket laws or regulations promulgated or proposed by any international entity are entirely void of any authority what-so-ever. Kindly stop referring to international law in general.. before people start believing that the U.N. or some such has some sort of mystical authority. Common law however does hold at least more authority than the various dictionaries you continually berate, as it is generally understood that our entire legal system has its roots in common law, and therefore it is at the very least a valid reference point in situations where one is needed.

    ..you know, such as a lack of all encompassing Federal definitions for various purposes, and getting to the core meaning of various obscure subjects such as 'driver' and 'travel'? (That was a joke.) 😉

    Kindly DO at least add an addendum on to the original post to update and answer the other common questions. If a dedicated researcher such as myself can't make it through the lot of it, I can guaranty you that the masses will simply reiterate what you've already heard a dozen times. 😉

  • juanjo54

    As is typical of the less intelligent sort who reside on the far right and far left of the political spectrum there is an inability to understand or an unwillingness to understand the law and how it operates. This nonsense where some so-called "sovereign citizen" cherry picks selections of different statutes and court decisions and jumbles them together to make up some bizarre legal theory is just that – nonsense. Mr. Schneider's comment is a good example of this.

    • Damon Schneider

      Example of this? Hmmm here for the ignorant to learn, if you
      refuse to accept the Law of the land is your business, you may
      characterize me in any fashion, I live it, I dont just talk it. Your
      opinion does not matter, my life experience tells me the truth. I
      will never again step foot into a non jurisdictional municipal court
      and there will be no general warrants for my arrest because of my
      proper actions. You do not need to understand for me to be right.
      Moron.

      No sovereign argument, no pseudo law just More indoctrination of confusion by government and people suck it right down. When you understand that a license of any kind converts your rights over to be controlled by any government by your own consent then maybe you'll understand on setting yourself FREE. Any moron that believes in government dictating and ignorant to the fact
      of life between them and their creator in which was and is the whole pretense of our Founders is foolish. No one has a right to control another. If one has a grievance then present it in
      the proper court, murder, thievery, property damage, ect. ect. I cant just go give John a citation and say hey I don't like you or your driving faster than Id like you to, here is a piece of paper
      Ill see you Tuesday in a municipal court. Men are flawed and imperfect, and ALL bound by the same Law no matter what position of government they hold. The Constitution is, was, and always will be the True Law of the Land. Just because you won't take time to understand it or know it doesn't make some who know and live it to be true, wrong. I do not drive with a license for its my right to pursuit of happiness. I have been given a few citations . A simple Affidavit correcting
      their administrative law and asking the right questions instead of ignoring in silence equals no warrants. General Warrants was the one main reason behind the revolutionary war amongst property ownership IE (LAND PATENTS) not deeds ect. So many so naive to believe
      government to be all unquestioned authority. Very foolish. Be courteous to the uniformed officer who swore to uphold the law of the land and should know and honor his oath but if not, why then ignore his/her arrogance. You may sue personally later for you now have a grievance. Proceed 1st with an affidavit with the prosecutor/court clerk by certified mail. Your argument is with them in whatever said court to now show you the grievance, jurisdictional authority, not on the street with a person carrying a weapon whole could cause you severe damage under badge of State. Freedom does not come for free but must be fought for by the knowledge of knowing the true law of the land. A LICENSE OF ANY KIND, leads to their control. Key point

      FYI::

      Correcting The Unconstitutional Acts Of Government.

      The correction to the problem of government usurping the rights of Citizens and States is for all Citizens to realize that the Federal government was never intended to have jurisdiction over or influence upon individual Citizens. Its purposes are to serve the States as enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, clauses 1-18 of the Constitution for the united States. We all need to realize that governments of all stripes will grab hold of as much power as they can by whatever means they
      can and that includes the Leviathan in Washington, D.C. We need to realize that the government in Washington is actually two governments in one: First, it is the Federal government of the States united, bound by the yoke and limitations of the Constitution and, second, it is the
      municipal government for the District of Columbia and all possessions and territories of the United States such as Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and US military
      installations, etc. where such constitutional restrictions do not apply and where the municipal government has the legislative authority to do as it pleases (Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 US Constitution).
      We need to realize that the majority of legislators are lawyers practiced in the art of word-smithing (saying one thing while deliberately meaning or implying another).
      We need to realize that the majority or laws passed in Washington are municipal laws and do not apply to the Citizens of the States united. We need to realize that the majority of the laws passed in Washington are written in such a way as to deceive us Citizens into believing that they do apply to us. We need to realize that such deceptive laws use customized language – words which
      mimic words we use every day but words which, within the law, have very different meanings from the commonly understood meaning. For example, the Title that establishes the Department of Education (for the United States) has within it a section called "definitions". Within that
      section it says, when used in this Title, the term "United States" means Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. It does NOT mean the States united
      that we usually think of as the United States. Thus, we are deceived into believing that the Department of Education has some legal authority over our private sector schools and school
      systems when, in fact, they do not and can not except by our quiet acquiescence to the deception. It is by such deceptions that the power of the people and the States is eroded and usurped. It is by such deceptions that the Leviathan becomes ever larger and more intrusive.

      So, what is the real solution? For every piece of legislation passed into law ask the question "to whom does this legislation apply or pertain?" If it pertains to individual citizens then ask, "by what
      authority or provision enumerated in the Constitution do you enact this law?"

      Remember, the high court has declared that if a law is repugnant to the Constitution, it is not and cannot be a law imposed upon the Citizenry, it can only be municipal law which has no affect upon Citizens of the States united.“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved,
      there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 463

      “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had
      never been passed.” – Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425

      “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant
      to the Constitution is null and void of law.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137

      You don't have to be a lawyer to figure this out or to correct the problem. You simply have to ask the right questions. And yes Actually, a law that is unconstitutional is enforceable. Congress has every right to pass whatever law they like when they are legislating "municipal law". The power to to exercise exclusive legislative authority is granted in the penultimate clause of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. It is the second mandate of the government in Washington, D.C. Such municipal law applies only to the capitol, its possessions and territories like Guam and Puerto Rico, and areas ceded to it by the States for military installations, ports, federal
      buildings, national parks and the like. Now, ask yourself, is obama-care municipal law or federal (pertaining to the States united under the Constitution) law? When congress legislates in its federal capacity, it must adhere to and be bound by the chains of the Constitution and laws so enacted are enforceable upon all Citizens of the States united under the Constitution. When congress legislates in its municipal capacity the Constitution does not come into play because such legislation does not pertain to the Citizens of the States united. Such legislation is enforceable upon citizens,residents, workers and those domiciled in the District of Columbia,
      the insular possessions and territories and areas ceded to the federal government. Now, ask yourself, does obama-care pertain to me? In fact, you should always ask and all legislation should clearly state whether it is municipal law or federal law. The difference is huge.

      • juanjo54

        That is not even remotely intelligible. How severely mentally ill are you?

        • Damon Schneider

          Your comment shows your ignorance of our Constitution, and an example of those who have nothing of factual substance to offer. Which was already established.

          • juanjo54

            Actually I obviously have a far greater understanding fo the Constitution given the drivel you are supporting.

          • Damon Schneider

            Right, exactly, thats why I am assuming from your comments that you have a drivers license subject to municipal courts jurisdiction, fines, time, and continued slavery as I continue to freely travel without a license to never appear in their courts without warrants or subjection to loss of my hard earned dollars. Yes I am quite sure you have it right. Laughable,not supporting the drivel as you call it but rather living the 1st hand experience. Maybe thats why your confused

          • juanjo54

            Yeah, until a cop stops you and then your world turns to shit. And I will be there laughing when it happens you deluding fuck bait.

          • Damon Schneider

            Well that was intelligent and explainable. Need anything else be said? You obviously missed where it was explained clearly YOU DO NOT NEED A LICENSE TO TRAVEL!!! I LIVE IT EVERYDAY, when addressed by an officer my world is FREE. I address court by mail, MY WORLD IS FREE. Its happened, I did it and it can only be done because I never consented converting my inalienable rights over by license. Who is the deluding fuck bait? The audience can see for themselves, they can research for themselves. My word need not be taking. Simply write your state legislators, ask them to show where Municipal Laws apply to a Natural private state citizens and see the answer they give you. Supreme Court has also ruled no License to Travel. Who is the deluding fuck bait? Now we all know

          • pseudolaw.com

            If you do it, it's at the government's discretion, not because you're right about some application of law. The only law supported by any force is national, state, county and municipal law and the decisions of judges where the constitutions and legislatures are vague or silent. Show me one instance of someone winning damages for false arrest, etc. when a state enforces its vehicle laws that haven't been struck down. Why can't you find one? It's because there is no actual right, and if you are indeed left alone you have merely bullied the officers in your area enough to not waste any more taxpayer time and money on your minor civil disobedience. Do something more serious or annoying to the public and see how quickly your doing evaporates.

            PS Please keep the discussion civil and de-escalate instead of escalate towards ad hominem attacks, name-calling, etc. Thanks

          • Damon Schneider

            Wrong, governments discretion? You have been duped, tricked, and seem submissive to the fact that government of flawed men are the all authority or corrupt courts by flawed men who sit on the bench. Your mind is closed. One can lead you to water of information but can not make you drink in research. The Constitution and Bill of rights are the only true law of the land. We are not subject to MUNICIPAL LAWS UNLESS one consents by way of license you signed for when received. PERIOD The SUPREME court has even ruled on this in the favor of the Natural Born State citizen. We free men have Inalienable RIGHTS protected by that Constitution, in which to say one may not control another and simply may do as he pleases as so long he/her is not harming or infringing upon another in the confines of their own property. Common sense and brotherly love go a long way. What we do is between ourselves and our creator. Does that give one the right to damage ones property, murder another, steal from another, rape another, bully another ect. ect. Of course not then there will result a grievance of some sort and one will be held accountable for their actions by a jury of their peers. Having said that if one has a license of any kind and does what I and others do, then your screwed in the confines of municipal law because you converted your rights to give them permission to do what they may with you.The article simply states debunking sovereign ways, and you can not and have not done so. One is as free as they wish to be when educated to the only law of the land and no court can rule against that unless you yourself did something to give them contractional consent to do so. You can argue all you want on case law, but with a license your comparing apple to oranges. Many of people across this great land who know the truth and stand on the law keeping in the confines of themselves not harming others do just fine. Government and courts are not the all authority. God is and that was the whole pretense of Our Founders when the country was founded. It was true then and its true today. The problem with most is the indoctrination from birth to believe you need a license to marry, you need a license to travel, you need a license to carry, you need a license for this or that. When you fall down that rabbit whole your now a slave to their authority. Period. What I presented was true and factual and you cant debunk it for many many know otherwise so continue on debating your case laws and the motor vehicle commercial municipal garbage as tho we are the ones who are disobedient. The magic bullet is to treat others the way you want to be treated and to never convert your inalienable rights by way of a license of any kind. Traffic courts are no more than a collection agency and they most certainly are MUNICIPAL LAWS. Officers can and have been sued for false arrests. To find you a case where it involves one without a license of any kind, Ill make effort just because but its rather irrelevant. If I am arrested, my car impound, loss of wages, then I have a grievance and will most certainly seek damages against the arresting officer for violation of my inalienable rights protected by The Constitution. A case has already been brought forward to the Supreme Court where the ruling is in place. They declared that if a law is repugnant to the Constitution, it is not and cannot be a law imposed upon the Citizenry, it can only be municipal law which has no affect upon Citizens of the States united.
            “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
            rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 463
            “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as
            though it had never been passed.” – Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425

            “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law
            of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and
            void of law.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137

            You don't have to be a lawyer to figure this out or to correct the problem. You simply have to ask the right questions.

          • pseudolaw.com

            The Constitution and Bill of rights are the only true law of the land.

            The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Law is as Congress makes it (Article 1) and the State governments make it and, in the absence of those, as the local collective People decide (Article 6, Clause 2). The Constitution and laws are ultimately interpreted by the Supreme Court (Article 3).

            We are not subject to MUNICIPAL LAWS

            Municipalities are incorporated under State governments. You are subject to State governments and are therefore also subject to municipal governments.

            The rights you claim to enjoy don't exist because they aren't supported by the courts or government enforcers. The government doesn't require contract, consent or license to impose its laws upon anyone. There is nowhere meaningful to argue otherwise. Government is a collective creation that can only be modified or destroyed with the consent and will of the collective.

            If you want to be generally left alone you could go live in the bush or the desert or at least buy land in an unincorporated area. Why blame the government for your unwillingness to go off grid and live free when there is still plenty of opportunity to do so?

          • Damon Schneider

            Your some what right but confused

            Correcting The Unconstitutional Acts Of Government.

            The
            correction to the problem of government usurping the rights of Citizens
            and States is for all Citizens to realize that the Federal government
            was never intended to have jurisdiction over or influence upon
            individual Citizens. Its purposes are to serve the States as enumerated
            in Article 1, Section 8, clauses 1-18 of the Constitution for the
            united States.

            We all need to realize that governments of all
            stripes will grab hold of as much power as they can by whatever means
            they can and that includes the Leviathan in Washington, D.C.

            We
            need to realize that the government in Washington is actually two
            governments in one: First, it is the Federal government of the States
            united, bound by the yoke and limitations of the Constitution and,
            second, it is the municipal government for the District of Columbia and
            all possessions and territories of the United States such as Puerto
            Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and US military installations,
            etc. where such constitutional restrictions do not apply and where the
            municipal government has the legislative authority to do as it pleases
            (Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 US Constitution).

            We need to
            realize that the majority of legislators are lawyers practiced in the
            art of word-smithing (saying one thing while deliberately meaning or
            implying another).

            We need to realize that the majority or laws
            passed in Washington are municipal laws and do not apply to the Citizens
            of the States united.

            We need to realize that the majority of
            the laws passed in Washington are written in such a way as to deceive us
            Citizens into believing that they do apply to us.

            We need to
            realize that such deceptive laws use customized language – words which
            mimic words we use every day but words which, within the law, have very
            different meanings from the commonly understood meaning. For example,
            the Title that establishes the Department of Education (for the United
            States) has within it a section called "definitions". Within that
            section it says, when used in this Title, the term "United States" means
            Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.
            It does NOT mean the States united that we usually think of as the
            United States. Thus, we are deceived into believing that the Department
            of Education has some legal authority over our private sector schools
            and school systems when, in fact, they do not and can not except by our
            quiet acquiescence to the deception. It is by such deceptions that the
            power of the people and the States is eroded and usurped. It is by such
            deceptions that the Leviathan becomes ever larger and more intrusive.

            So, what is the real solution? For every piece of legislation passed
            into law ask the question "to whom does this legislation apply or
            pertain?" If it pertains to individual citizens then ask, "by what
            authority or provision enumerated in the Constitution do you enact this
            law?"

            Remember, the high court has declared that if a law is
            repugnant to the Constitution, it is not and cannot be a law imposed
            upon the Citizenry, it can only be municipal law which has no affect
            upon Citizens of the States united.

            “Where rights secured by the
            Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation
            which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 463

            “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no
            duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal
            contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” –
            Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425

            “The Constitution of these
            United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant
            to the Constitution is null and void of law.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5
            U.S. 137

            You don't have to be a lawyer to figure this out or to correct the problem. You simply have to ask the right questions.

          • pseudolaw.com

            The Constitution never had to bind individuals. It binds the government, limiting their actions towards individuals. Try a basic law course. And stop the ad hominem attacks and repeating the same shit over and over – we heard you the first time. Keep it calm and keep it civil and keep it objective or don't bother commenting. You've been warned twice now.

          • pseudolaw.com

            You've pasted this multiple times already, so I deleted it, and next time it's a ban. Stop wasting everyone's time.

          • Todd

            Where in no Federal Law exists the states have the right to create law.
            This was an argument that was used in the cases where the Supreme Court ruled against tge mandatory licensing vs the sovereign rights of the citizens. Another phase uses was a quote – Any law which violates the Constitution is void of law and therefore does not have to be accepted by the people nor can any judge be forced to uphold it.
            With that said… You are wrong in your opinion. Not all laws are legal. One would have to truly understand law in order to know this not just quote standard laws which clearly violate the Constitution.

          • pseudolaw.com

            You obviously don't understand what I've already wrote..

          • roninmd

            The articles of confederation are even more supreme than the constitution. Common law is also more supreme than statute.

          • Alicia

            Not only do you have the right to free travel without license, registration or insurance you also have a right to free travel with a current license. The license contract pertains to commercial driving not traveling by automobile. Furthermore, the drivers license contract does not inform drivers to the restrictions required within that contract making it null and void when you declare your reservation of rights, without prejudice, under the uniform commercial code 1-308. There are several people who have fought and won in every state and in the Supreme Court. Refer to Marbury V Pennsylvania (no state can convert a secured liberty to a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. If the state requires this oh travelers anyways refer to Shuttlesworth V Alabama ( you can ignore the license and engage in your right without impunity. US Supreme Court in Reno V Condon states: "The activity licensed by state DMVs and in connection with which individuals must submit personal information to the DMV is itself integrally related to interstate commerce." There are several other rulings by the Supreme Court that verify that traveling a right not a privilege and any state law requiring licensing, insurance and registration can be ignored without impunity. I myself have fought citations in court and have had ALL of them dismissed. I no longer get citations and carry a document of "constitution travelers license" that refers to ALL my rights and freedom to travel unenroached and without impunity.

          • pseudolaw.com

            So why can't you or any other traveler win a claim for false arrest or trespass to property when a state enforces its vehicle laws that haven't been struck down? It's because there is no actual right to travel without regulation, and dismissals are because the government simply doesn't want to waste time or money correcting minor civil disobedience. It's called prosecutorial discretion. Try doing something more intrusive, like stealing the mayor's parking spot, and see how far you get. lol

            Furthermore, the drivers license contract does not inform drivers to the restrictions required within that contract making it null and void when you declare your reservation of rights, without prejudice, under the uniform commercial code 1-308.

            Who gave the UCC power in your state? Who decides what contract law is in your state? State legislators and courts. You're putting the cart before the horse. The state made the contract law you're claiming to use to opt out of the state. Legislation isn't a contract, it just applies to everyone in the area by force. The only law that matters is the law that can be enforced, and in the US that's the state and federal constitutions, legislation, and common law made in state and federal courts.

            Reno V Condon states: "The activity licensed by state DMVs and in connection with which individuals must submit personal information to the DMV is itself integrally related to interstate commerce."

            If the federal government deems traveling in a self-propelled vehicle, aka "driving a motor vehicle" according to every state's definition in their vehicle code or common law, an act of interstate commerce to gain jurisdiction you are bound by that. It doesn't exempt you from being obligated to obey state law. State governments have never, ever been restricted to only regulating commercial activity.

            You might want to check your sources because the word "integrally" doesn't even appear in Reno v Condon. In fact it was the driver's license personal information that was found to fall under interstate commerce, not the act of traveling or driving itself.

            The United States bases its Commerce Clause argument on the fact that the personal, identifying information that the DPPA regulates is a "thin[g] in interstate commerce," and that the sale or release of that information in interstate commerce is therefore a proper subject of congressional regulation. … We agree with the United States' contention. The motor vehicle information which the States have historically sold is used by insurers, manufacturers, direct marketers, and others engaged in interstate commerce to contact drivers with customized solicitations. The information is also used in the stream of interstate commerce by various public and private entities for matters related to interstate motoring. Because drivers' information is, in this context, an article of commerce, its sale or release into the interstate stream of business is sufficient to support congressional regulation.

          • Corpus Delecti

            Unfortunately, you are very ignorant about the matter and law itself, including origins of such and precedence– And I don't care if you are possibly an attorney– You are still very ignorant on the matter.

            You said: "Show me one instance of someone winning damages for false arrest, etc.
            when a state enforces its vehicle laws that haven't been struck down."

            Because "lawyers" are part of the rigged game whose first duty is to the court and not their client (see Corpus Juris Secundum Vol. 7). Lawyers make money whether you win, lose or draw in court and the vast majority of lawyers will not buck the system that feeds them. The courts are largely comprised of former lawyers, the same people who largely write laws, the regulation of such which provides the above par standard of living most lawyers enjoy. That, in your view, nobody has ever one such-and-such case is meaningless and in no manner leads one to conclude such law or actions are just. Bogus laws (and even valid ones) are nullified / overturned all the time for political reasons. Legal action against the system is very costly, a regular citizen could not afford or mount such attack, so who is going to fund such? And why? You think some justice loving lawyer is going to fight injustice of this magnitude for free? Hahahahaha!

            And for example, let's look at the sodomy law which was declared illegal about a dozen years ago. Until the moment that it was declared unconstitutional, NOBODY had done what you claim to defeat such either. And then it changed, overnight. Hello???

            If states had the right to make "traffic laws" (true laws are called "statutes") then why do they not do such instead of using legislative trickery to coerce people to sign up for a "license" forcing them to obey "codes" ("codes" are not "statute")? The Supreme Court decisions declaring a "Right to Travel" have never been overturned and still have precedence, and such exists in much greater volume that your couple cites. Further, BOTH RULINGS CANNOT EXIST, ONE HAS TO FALL. The preponderance of higher court decisions support, and have never been overturned, a Right to Travel.

            Their are volumes of other established case law that shreds your arguments, again and again.

          • GerryL

            "Lawyers make money whether you win, lose or draw in court" so do doctors, whether you die or not. You Sov Cits should get together on your terminology. Each of you has a different opinion as to what a code is or a statue or a law. Combine that with a complete misunderstanding of Common Law and God-given rights or Natural rights you barf up a philosophical dog's breakfast. Let's face it. You are intellectual losers.

          • APerson@WeThePeople.com

            I don't think he understands that the people also have the ability and the right to use force. We just allow the courts their process because it's based on reason.

          • pseudolaw.com

            No such right has ever existed in the US or any State as far as applies to legislation that hasn't been struck down by a court. You're thinking of natural law theories which are numerous and varied, and have no physical force backing them up. The US was arguably originally inspired by the Lockean theory of social contract, but the Constitution is the supreme law, and you can't successfully defend yourself by citing anything outside of its purview in any court in the US, or around the world because the US Constitution and resulting nation-state is recognized internationally.

          • People

            No physical force such as Gravity?

          • Zmenova Turak

            Gravity is a physical force.

          • pseudolaw.com

            Gravity isn't the one making you get a driver's license. The legislatures and the courts, police, national guard, military, etc. they employ are. You're obviously trolling because you can't come up with a meaningful rebuttal…

          • roninmd

            The right to travel is in much older documents and still in force.
            Take article 4 of the articles of confederation for example. This is not pseudo law and all agents of government must abide by the articles of confederation as well.

            Articles of Confederation (1781):
            … the free inhabitants of each of these states … shall be entitled to privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, …

            The people just don't have the ability or the guts to enforce their rights under law with the use of force available to them in the second amendment.

            Technically, when a police officer stops an interstate traveller, they are breaking this law every time they they are enforcing the traffic code of their state.

          • pseudolaw.com

            The Articles of Confederation are no longer of any force or effect. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The right to ingress and egress to and from States in current US law can be seen here. Why would you think that prevents the States from regulating dangerous modes of travel? The second amendment wasn't meant to be used to overthrow reasonable laws demanded by the people for public safety.

          • Smells Nice

            The articles of confederation do have force and effect when the people
            decide to enforce them. When these right to travel cases are appealed
            beyond the level of the Supreme Court, the states and the federal
            government realize they don't have a claim. That's just simple popular
            sovereignty as it is found in the 10th amendment of the constitution.
            Ultimately it is the right of the people to dismiss government in any manner they
            see fit. Especially when their government no longer represents them.

          • pseudolaw.com

            The Constitution is the supreme law and the Constitution says the Supreme Court is the highest court in the country. The military and police only support the Constitutional government. They don't support any Articles of Confederation or whatever personal ideas of law you think are relevant that aren't because they have no force behind them. They haven't since 1778 when the Constitution came into force and the US aka USA became recognized internationally by ~200 other sovereign nation-states.

          • Roninmd

            Yes but that's under statute law. There are also other laws in effect such as natural law and common law. These laws take precedent over the Supreme Law of the Land and the agents that support it. When the Constitution is no longer in effect, the military and the police no longer have any jurisdictional powers beyond the arms they bear. The same goes for those people who are equally and rightfully armed.

          • pseudolaw.com

            The legislatures created the constitutions and courts and pay the judges, military and police. Get a clue.

          • pseudolaw.com

            The legislatures created the constitutions and courts and pay the judges, military and police to enforce the constitutions and legislation. Get a clue.

          • Zmenova Turak

            No it was the people who made the constitution. It's in the preamble as in "We the People.." Are you sure I need to get a clue? Isnt't that an ad hominem attack on me?

          • WeThePeople

            According to the preamble, "We the people.." created the constitution.

          • pseudolaw.com

            Who do you think represents the collective People in a republic? Statutory law has always been the highest law. What right would a court or law enforcement agency ever have to overrule its creator and employer?

          • Zmenova Turak

            In today's society, no-one in government represents the people. Why? Because we are an Oligarchy.

          • pseudolaw.com

            Please try to stay on topic. This article is about the right to travel in the existing United States.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            The Supreme Law of the Land is just that — supreme. There is no common law, statute law, or natural law that is enforceable above the organic constitutions. That's kind of the point.

          • pseudolaw.com

            The american states began with the formation or continuation of a legislature/assembly that wrote a constitution. English statutes and common law were imported into the states by reception statutes. The legislatures have always retained their superiority, as clearly seen. The state legislature created the constitution, courts, police, etc. and pays police, prosecutors and judges to uphold the constitution and legislation. Common law is continued, modified and made by judges in those courts, and varies by state. Common law, all meaningful law i.e. backed by force, begins inside and is subject to the constitutional state and its legislated laws.

          • juanjo54

            As is typical of the less intelligent sort who reside on the far right
            and far left of the political spectrum there is an inability to
            understand or an unwillingness to understand the law and how it
            operates. This nonsense where some so-called "sovereign citizen" cherry
            picks selections of different statutes and court decisions and jumbles
            them together to make up some bizarre legal theory is just that –
            nonsense. That is all you have done here. As for your claims of what you do ro do not do, well that is just a claim. If you are the same as most all of your ilk you will cry like a bitch when you are finally stopped by a cop who decides he is going to enforce the law and arrest your ignorant ass. Then you can sit in jail like the Bundy clan who though they had a "constitutional right" to seize a bird sanctuary belonging to the People of the United States and vandalize it. Unless of course you are as stupid as the Finicum asshole and you decide to commit suicide by cop. Either way for society it will be a win win situation.

          • Damon Schneider

            You cannot win an argument simply by way of bullying or unintelligent garbage. What I presented is true and factual, all one needs to do is write their own state legislators asking where they have the authority outside the confines of the State or Federal Constitution. Being a complete utter moron does not win your stance. Any intelligent being can see and read that your a tricked closed minded monkey under the government authority who wishes to continue garbage of slavery.

          • juanjo54

            Sorry junior but you are trying to shift the argument away form the point I made and which stands. You have presented no evidence to support your claim. You have simply posted cherry picked snippets of laws and court cases out of context and then strung them together in an unintelligible mishmash claiming they support your position. No one has argued anything about state legislators being able to operate outside the state and federal constitutions.

            To the contrary you have claimed they have done so and not proven anything. Instead you use gibberish.

          • Damon Schneider

            Hey dumbass your a little late to the table, your falling behind. dismiss yourself, you have nothing intelligent to offer. My claim is and was, Municipal laws do not apply to state citizens and one has a right to travel without a license backed by the Supreme Court on both accounts and the evidence dumbass is in OUR Constitution.

          • pseudolaw.com

            I asked you to stop the excessive ad hominem attacks and repetitive arguments but you didn't so now I'm going to stop them for you.

          • http://byroncroft.500px.com CROFT Photography

            you probably have to use smaller words and define ones like "ad hominem" for those on the shorter bus

          • juanjo54

            Oh we all know what your opinion is, you have been kind enough to bloviate on it for some time. The problem for you is that you have done nothing to prove it. Cherry picking snippets of this and that with no regard for external or internal context and then loudly announcing you have proven your opinion is a common action among certain types who have no actual proof. But thanks for playing.

          • GerryL

            Bullshit.

          • Lawrence J Porter

            Damon S. Sir you are 100% right, and the reasons why our laws are so corrupt is due to disobedience of the Constitution, backed by greed of making money for self enrichment, License is a way of tracking debtors/ aka government slaves and charging the strawman for not doing what the master told them to do. Clearly these other guys on ur page are still in the system, it's a waist of time talking to them. Ignorance of the law (Constitution) is no excuse. The police in these states swore under oath to uphold the United States Constitution, not codes and statues. I bet these other guys will start registering their snowblowers, and lawnmowers, Just unlearned people.

          • pseudolaw.com

            In accordance with currently-reigning principles of international law, the US aka USA is a sovereign nation-state that enjoys exclusive sovereignty over its recognized geographical area.

            Article 1 of the federal Constitution says Congress can make laws, aka statutes. State constitutions create legislatures with the power to create statutes, too. Constitutions also create courts to enforce the constitution and statutes and create common law that only applies where legislation is vague or silent, and legislatures determine the judge's salaries. State police's first duty is to enforce the laws of the state that pays their paycheck. Federal police are employed to enforce federal law.

            If you think a law is unconstitutional you have every right to defend yourself in court and appeal any judgment when charged. If the courts agree with you the charges will be dismissed and the law may be struck down, then the legislature can create another law and try again. If the courts don't agree with you it's up to you to rally the people of the state to pressure your representatives in the legislature to change the laws. That's how representative democracy in a republic works.

          • Smells Nice

            Yes but the elections are fixed. Our government no longer represents the people.

          • pseudolaw.com

            If you truly believe that there is only one solution and that's violent revolution. Then after all the death and destruction the same thing or worse gets set up all over again. You aren't going to change the global system of international law that says nation-states have sovereignty over geographical areas and can rule them as they see fit. Humanity likes society and the order structured government provides. That's why we have it.

          • Smells Nice

            The people delegated their authority to this form of government doesn't mean death and destruction in order to delegate their authority to a new form of government. The death and destruction will come from those institutions that wish to remain in existence.

            If there is no government, the people will do as they have done under common law.

          • pseudolaw.com

            Take the anti-state crap elsewhere – this article is about actual rights inside the existing US that don't take a militaristic revolution to enforce.

          • Roninmd

            Pseudo, Smells wasn't taking about a militaristic revolution. I believe Smells was trying to get